Methods of adiabatic quantum computation

ABSTRACT

A method for quantum computing using a quantum system comprising a plurality of qubits is provided. The system can be in any one of at least two configurations at any given time including one characterized by an initialization Hamiltonian H O  and one characterized by a problem Hamiltonian H P . The problem Hamiltonian H P  has a final state. Each respective first qubit in the qubits is arranged with respect to a respective second qubit in the qubits such that they define a predetermined coupling strength. The predetermined coupling strengths between the qubits in the plurality of qubits collectively define a computational problem to be solved. In the method, the system is initialized to H O  and is then adiabatically changed until the system is described by the final state of the problem Hamiltonian H P . Then the state of the system is read out by probing an observable of the σ X  Pauli matrix operator.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION

This application is a division of U.S. patent application Ser. No.11/625,702, filed Jan. 22, 2007, now pending, which claims benefit under37 CFR 119(e) to provisional patent application No. 60/762,619, filedJan. 27, 2006, which applications are incorporated herein by referencein their entirety.

BACKGROUND

1. Field

Apparatus and methods for performing quantum computing are provided. Thesystems and methods involve the use of superconducting circuitry and,more specifically, the use of devices for quantum computation.

2. Description of the Related Art

A Turing machine is a theoretical computing system, described in 1936 byAlan Turing. A Turing machine that can efficiently simulate any otherTuring machine is called a Universal Turing Machine (UTM). TheChurch-Turing thesis states that any practical computing model haseither the equivalent or a subset of the capabilities of a UTM.

A quantum computer is any physical system that harnesses one or morequantum effects to perform a computation. A quantum computer that canefficiently simulate any other quantum computer is called a UniversalQuantum Computer (UQC).

In 1981 Richard P. Feynman proposed that quantum computers could be usedto solve certain computational problems more efficiently than a UTM andtherefore invalidate the Church-Turing thesis. See e.g., Feynman R. P.,“Simulating Physics with Computers”, International Journal ofTheoretical Physics, Vol. 21 (1982) pp. 467-488. For example, Feynmannoted that a quantum computer could be used to simulate certain otherquantum systems, allowing exponentially faster calculation of certainproperties of the simulated quantum system than is possible using a UTM.

Approaches to Quantum Computation

There are several general approaches to the design and operation ofquantum computers. One such approach is the “circuit model” of quantumcomputation. In this approach, qubits are acted upon by sequences oflogical gates that are the compiled representation of an algorithm.Circuit model quantum computers have several serious barriers topractical implementation. In the circuit model, it is required thatqubits remain coherent over time periods much longer than thesingle-gate time. This requirement arises because circuit model quantumcomputers require operations that are collectively called quantum errorcorrection in order to operate. Quantum error correction cannot beperformed without the circuit model quantum computer's qubits beingcapable of maintaining quantum coherence over time periods on the orderof 1,000 times the single-gate time. Much research has been focused ondeveloping qubits with coherence sufficient to form the basicinformation units of circuit model quantum computers. See e.g., Shor, P.W. “Introduction to Quantum Algorithms”, arXiv.org:quant-ph/0005003(2001), pp. 1-27. The art is still hampered by an inability to increasethe coherence of qubits to acceptable levels for designing and operatingpractical circuit model quantum computers.

An example of the circuit model is shown in FIG. 2. Circuit 200 is animplementation of the quantum Fourier transform. The quantum Fouriertransform is a useful procedure found in many quantum computingapplications based on the circuit model. See, for example, United StatesPatent Publication 2003/0164490 A1, entitled “Optimization process forquantum computing process,” which is hereby incorporated by reference inits entirety. Time progresses from left to right, i.e., time step 201precedes time step 202, and so forth. The four qubits in the quantumsystem described by FIG. 2 are indexed 0-3 from bottom to top. The stateof qubit 0 at any given time step is represented by wire S0-S0″, thestate of qubit 1 at any give time step is represented by S1-S1′, etc. Intime step 201, a single-qubit unitary gate, A₃, is applied to qubit 3.The next gate on wire S3-S3′ for qubit 3 is a two-qubit gate, B₂₃, whichis applied to qubits 2 and 3 at time step 202. In general the A_(i) gate(e.g., A₃ as applied to qubit 3 at time step 201) is a HADAMARD gateapplied on the i^(th) qubit while the B_(ij) gate (e.g., B₂₃ which isapplied to qubits 2 and 3 at time step 202) is a CPHASE gate couplingthe i^(th) and j^(th) qubit. The application of unitary gates continuesuntil states S0-S3 have been converted to S0′-S3′. After time step 210,more unitary gates can be applied to the qubits or the states of thequbits can be determined (e.g., by measurement).

Another approach to quantum computation, involves using the naturalphysical evolution of a system of coupled quantum systems as acomputational system. This approach does not make critical use ofquantum gates and circuits. Instead, starting from a known initialHamiltonian, it relies upon the guided physical evolution of a system ofcoupled quantum systems wherein the problem to be solved has beenencoded in the terms of the system's Hamiltonian, so that the finalstate of the system of coupled quantum systems contains informationrelating to the answer to the problem to be solved. This approach doesnot require long qubit coherence times. Examples of this type ofapproach include adiabatic quantum computation, cluster-state quantumcomputation, one-way quantum computation, quantum annealing andclassical annealing, and are described, for example, in Farhi, E. etal., “Quantum Adiabatic Evolution Algorithms versus StimulatedAnnealing” arXiv.org:quant-ph/0201031 (2002), pp 1-24.

As shown in FIG. 3, adiabatic quantum computing involves initializing asystem, which encodes a problem to be solved, to an initial state. Thisinitial state is described by an initial Hamiltonian H₀. Then the systemis migrated adiabatically to a final state described by HamiltonianH_(P). The final state encodes a solution to the problem. The migrationfrom H₀ to H_(P) follows an interpolation path described by functionγ(t) that is continuous over the time interval zero to T, inclusive, andhas a condition that the magnitude of initial Hamiltonian H₀ is reducedto zero after time T. Here, T, refers to the time point at which thesystem reaches the state represented by the Hamiltonian H_(P).Optionally, the interpolation can traverse an extra Hamiltonian H_(E)that can contain tunneling terms for some or all of the qubitsrepresented by H₀. The magnitude of extra Hamiltonian H_(E) is describedby a function δ(t) that is continuous over the time interval zero to T,inclusive, and is zero at the start (t=0) and end (t=T) of theinterpolation while being non-zero at all or a portion of the timesbetween t=0 and t=T.

Qubits

As mentioned previously, qubits can be used as fundamental units ofinformation for a quantum computer. As with bits in UTMs, qubits canrefer to at least two distinct quantities; a qubit can refer to theactual physical device in which information is stored, and it can alsorefer to the unit of information itself, abstracted away from itsphysical device.

Qubits generalize the concept of a classical digital bit. A classicalinformation storage device can encode two discrete states, typicallylabeled “0” and “1”. Physically these two discrete states arerepresented by two different and distinguishable physical states of theclassical information storage device, such as direction or magnitude ofmagnetic field, current, or voltage, where the quantity encoding the bitstate behaves according to the laws of classical physics. A qubit alsocontains two discrete physical states, which can also be labeled “0” and“1”. Physically these two discrete states are represented by twodifferent and distinguishable physical states of the quantum informationstorage device, such as direction or magnitude of magnetic field,current, or voltage, where the quantity encoding the bit state behavesaccording to the laws of quantum physics. If the physical quantity thatstores these states behaves quantum mechanically, the device canadditionally be placed in a superposition of 0 and 1. That is, the qubitcan exist in both a “0” and “1” state at the same time, and so canperform a computation on both states simultaneously. In general, Nqubits can be in a superposition of 2^(N) states. Quantum algorithmsmake use of the superposition property to speed up some computations.

In standard notation, the basis states of a qubit are referred to as the|0

and |1

states. During quantum computation, the state of a qubit, in general, isa superposition of basis states so that the qubit has a nonzeroprobability of occupying the |0

basis state and a simultaneous nonzero probability of occupying the |1

basis state. Mathematically, a superposition of basis states means thatthe overall state of the qubit, which is denoted |Ψ

, has the form |Ψ

=a|0

+b|1

, where a and b are coefficients corresponding to the probabilities |a|²and |b|², respectively. The coefficients a and b each have real andimaginary components, which allows the phase of the qubit to becharacterized. The quantum nature of a qubit is largely derived from itsability to exist in a coherent superposition of basis states and for thestate of the qubit to have a phase. A qubit will retain this ability toexist as a coherent superposition of basis states when the qubit issufficiently isolated from sources of decoherence.

To complete a computation using a qubit, the state of the qubit ismeasured (i.e., read out). Typically, when a measurement of the qubit isperformed, the quantum nature of the qubit is temporarily lost and thesuperposition of basis states collapses to either the |0

basis state or the |1

basis state and thus regaining its similarity to a conventional bit. Theactual state of the qubit after it has collapsed depends on theprobabilities |a|² and |b|² immediately prior to the readout operation.

Superconducting Qubits

There are many different hardware and software approaches underconsideration for use in quantum computers. One hardware approach usesintegrated circuits formed of superconducting materials, such asaluminum or niobium. The technologies and processes involved indesigning and fabricating superconducting integrated circuits aresimilar to those used for conventional integrated circuits.

Superconducting qubits are a type of superconducting device that can beincluded in a superconducting integrated circuit. Superconducting qubitscan be separated into several categories depending on the physicalproperty used to encode information. For example, they may be separatedinto charge, flux and phase devices, as discussed in, for exampleMakhlin et al., 2001, Reviews of Modern Physics 73, pp. 357-400. Chargedevices store and manipulate information in the charge states of thedevice, where elementary charges consist of pairs of electrons calledCooper pairs. A Cooper pair has a charge of 2e and consists of twoelectrons bound together by, for example, a phonon interaction. Seee.g., Nielsen and Chuang, Quantum Computation and Quantum Information,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000), pp. 343-345. Flux devicesstore information in a variable related to the magnetic flux throughsome part of the device. Phase devices store information in a variablerelated to the difference in superconducting phase between two regionsof the phase device. Recently, hybrid devices using two or more ofcharge, flux and phase degrees of freedom have been developed. See e.g.,U.S. Pat. No. 6,838,694 and U.S. Patent Application No. 2005-0082519.

FIG. 1A illustrates a persistent current qubit 101. Persistent currentqubit 101 comprises a loop 103 of superconducting material interruptedby Josephson junctions 101-1, 101-2, and 101-3. Josephson junctions aretypically formed using standard fabrication processes, generallyinvolving material deposition and lithography stages. See, e.g., Madou,Fundamentals of Microfabrication, Second Edition, CRC Press, 2002.Methods for fabricating Josephson junctions are well known and describedin Ramos et al., 2001, IEEE Trans. App. Supercond. 11, 998, for example.Details specific to persistent current qubits can be found in C. H. vander Wal, 2001; J. B. Majer, 2002; and J. R. Butcher, 2002, all Theses inFaculty of Applied Sciences, Delft University of Technology, Delft, TheNetherlands; http://qt.tn.tudelft.nl; Kavli Institute of NanoscienceDelft, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5046, 2600 GA Delft, TheNetherlands. Common substrates include silicon, silicon oxide, orsapphire, for example. Josephson junctions can also include insulatingmaterials such as aluminum oxide, for example. Exemplary superconductingmaterials useful for forming superconducting loop 103 are aluminum andniobium. The Josephson junctions have cross-sectional sizes ranging fromabout 10 nanometers (nm) to about 10 micrometers (μm). One or more ofthe Josephson junctions 101 has parameters, such as the size of thejunction, the junction surface area, the Josephson energy or thecharging energy that differ from the other Josephson junctions in thequbit.

The difference between any two Josephson junctions in the persistentcurrent qubit is characterized by a coefficient, termed α, whichtypically ranges from about 0.5 to about 1.3. In some instances, theterm α for a pair of Josephson junctions in the persistent current qubitis the ratio of the critical current between the two Josephson junctionsin the pair. The critical current of a Josephson junction is the minimumcurrent through the junction at which the junction is no longersuperconducting. That is, below the critical current, the junction issuperconducting whereas above the critical current, the junction is notsuperconducting. Thus, for example, the term α for junctions 101-1 and101-2 is defined as the ratio between the critical current of junction101-1 and the critical current of junction 101-2.

Referring to FIG. 1A, a bias source 110 is inductively coupled topersistent current qubit 101. Bias source 110 is used to thread amagnetic flux Φ_(x) through phase qubit 101 to provide control of thestate of the phase qubit. In some instances, the persistent currentqubit operates with a magnetic flux bias Φ_(x) ranging from about 0.2·Φ₀to about 0.8·Φ₀, where Φ₀ is the flux quantum. In some instances, themagnetic flux bias ranges from about 0.47·Φ₀ to about 0.5·Φ₀.

Persistent current qubit 101 has a two-dimensional potential withrespect to the phase across Josephson junctions 101-1, 101-2, and 101-3.In some instances, persistent current qubit 101 is biased with amagnetic flux Φ_(x), such that the two-dimensional potential profileincludes regions of local energy minima, where the local energy minimaare separated from each other by small energy barriers and are separatedfrom other regions by large energy barriers. In some instances, thispotential has the shape of double well potential 100B (FIG. 1B), whichincludes a left well 160-0 and a right well 160-1. In such instances,left well 160-0 can represent clockwise (102-0) circulating supercurrentin the phase qubit 101 and right well 160-1 can representcounter-clockwise (102-1) circulating supercurrent in persistent currentqubit 101 of FIG. 1A.

When wells 160-0 and 160-1 are at or near degeneracy, meaning that theyare at the same or nearly the same energy potential as illustrated inFIG. 1B, the quantum state of persistent current qubit 101 becomes acoherent superposition of the phase or basis states and device can beoperated as a phase qubit. The point at or near degeneracy is hereinreferred to as the point of computational operation of the persistentcurrent. During computational operation of the persistent current qubit,the charge of the qubit is fixed leading to uncertainty in the phasebasis and delocalization of the phase states of the qubit. Controllablequantum effects can then be used to process the information stored inthose phase states according to the rules of quantum mechanics. Thismakes the persistent current qubit robust against charge noise andthereby prolongs the time under which the qubit can be maintained in acoherent superposition of basis states.

Computational Complexity Theory

In computer science, computational complexity theory is the branch ofthe theory of computation that studies the resources, or cost, of thecomputation required to solve a given computational problem. This costis usually measured in terms of abstract parameters such as time andspace, called computational resources. Time represents the number ofsteps required to solve a problem and space represents the quantity ofinformation storage required or how much memory is required.

Computational complexity theory classifies computational problems intocomplexity classes. The number of complexity classes is ever changing,as new ones are defined and existing ones merge through thecontributions of computer scientists. The complexity classes of decisionproblems include:

-   -   1. P—The complexity class containing decision problems that can        be solved by a deterministic UTM using a polynomial amount of        computation time;    -   2. NP (“Non-deterministic Polynomial time”)—The set of decision        problems solvable in polynomial time on a non-deterministic UTM.        Equivalently, it is the set of problems that can be “verified”        by a deterministic UTM in polynomial time;    -   3. NP-hard (Non-deterministic UTM Polynomial-time hard)—The        class of decision problems that contains all problems H, such        that for every decision problem L in NP there exists a        polynomial-time many-one reduction to H. Informally, this class        can be described as containing the decision problems that are at        least as hard as any problem in NP;    -   4. NP-complete—A decision problem C is NP-complete if it is        complete for NP, meaning that:        -   (a) it is in NP and        -   (b) it is NP-hard,    -   i.e., every other problem in NP is reducible to it. “Reducible”        means that for every problem L, there is a polynomial-time        many-one reduction, a deterministic algorithm which transforms        instances I∈L into instances c∈C, such that the answer to c is        YES if and only if the answer to I is YES. To prove that an NP        problem A is in fact an NP-complete problem it is sufficient to        show that an already known NP-complete problem reduces to A.

Decision problems have binary outcomes. Problems in NP are computationproblems for which there exists a polynomial time verification. That is,it takes no more than polynomial time (class P) in the size of theproblem to verify a potential solution. It may take more than polynomialtime, however, to find a potential solution. NP-hard problems are atleast as hard as any problem in NP.

Optimization problems are problems for which one or more objectivefunctions are minimized or maximized over a set of variables, sometimessubject to a set of constraints. For example, the Traveling SalesmanProblem (“TSP”) is an optimization problem where an objective functionrepresenting, for example, distance or cost, must be optimized to findan itinerary, which is encoded in a set of variables representing theoptimized solution to the problem. For example, given a list oflocations, the problem may consist of finding the shortest route thatvisits all locations exactly once. Other examples of optimizationproblems include Maximum Independent Set, integer programming,constraint optimization, factoring, prediction modeling, and k-SAT.These problems are abstractions of many real-world optimizationproblems, such as operations research, financial portfolio selection,scheduling, supply management, circuit design, and travel routeoptimization. Many large-scale decision-based optimization problems areNP-hard. See e.g., “A High-Level Look at Optimization: Past, Present,and Future” e-Optimization.com, 2000.

Simulation problems typically deal with the simulation of one system byanother system, usually over a period of time. For example, computersimulations can be made of business processes, ecological habitats,protein folding, molecular ground states, quantum systems, and the like.Such problems often include many different entities with complexinter-relationships and behavioral rules. In Feynman it was suggestedthat a quantum system could be used to simulate some physical systemsmore efficiently than a UTM.

Many optimization and simulation problems are not solvable using UTMs.Because of this limitation, there is need in the art for computationaldevices capable of solving computational problems beyond the scope ofUTMs. In the field of protein folding, for example, grid computingsystems and supercomputers have been used to try to simulate largeprotein systems. See Shirts et al., 2000, Science 290, pp. 1903-1904,and Allen et al., 2001, IBM Systems Journal 40, p. 310. The NEOS solveris an online network solver for optimization problems, where a usersubmits an optimization problem, selects an algorithm to solve it, andthen a central server directs the problem to a computer in the networkcapable of running the selected algorithm. See e.g., Dolan et al., 2002,SIAM News Vol. 35, p. 6. Other digital computer-based systems andmethods for solving optimization problems can be found, for example, inFourer et al., 2001, Interfaces 31, pp. 130-150. All these methods arelimited, however, by the fact they utilize digital computers, which areUTMs, and accordingly, are subject to the limits of classical computingthat impose unfavorable scaling between problem size and solution time.

SUMMARY

The need in the art for improved systems and methods for adiabaticquantum computing are addressed by the present apparatus and methods. Insome embodiments, a graph based computing problem, such as MAXCUT, isrepresented by an undirected edge-weighted graph. Each node in theedge-weighted graph corresponds to a qubit in a plurality of qubits. Theedge weights of the graph are represented in the plurality of qubits bythe values of the coupling energies between the qubits. For example, theedge weight between a first and second node in the graph is representedby the coupling energy between a corresponding first and second qubit inthe plurality of qubits.

In one aspect of the present methods, the plurality of qubits thatrepresents the graph is initialized to a first state that does notpermit the qubits to quantum tunnel. Then, the plurality of qubits isset to an intermediate state in which quantum tunneling betweenindividual basis states within each qubit in the plurality of qubits canoccur. In some embodiments, the change to the intermediate state occursadiabatically. In other words, for any given instant t that occursduring the change to the intermediate state or while the qubits are inthe intermediate state, the plurality of qubits are in the ground stateof an instantaneous Hamiltonian that describes the plurality of qubitsat the instant t. The qubits remain in the intermediate state thatpermits quantum tunneling between basis states for a period of time thatis sufficiently long enough to allow the plurality of qubits to reach asolution for the computation problem represented by the plurality ofqubits.

Once the qubits have been permitted to quantum tunnel for a sufficientperiod of time, the state of the qubits is adjusted such that they reachsome final state that either does not permit quantum tunneling or, atleast, does not permit rapid quantum tunneling. In some embodiments, thechange to the final state occurs adiabatically. In other words, for anygiven instant t that occurs during the change to the final state, theplurality of qubits are in the ground state of an instantaneousHamiltonian that describes the plurality of qubits at the instant t.

In other examples of the systems and methods of the present methods, theplurality of qubits that represents the graph is initialized to a firststate that does permit the qubits to quantum tunnel. The state of thequantum system is changed once the qubits have been permitted to quantumtunnel for a sufficient period of time. The state of the qubits isadjusted such that they reach some final state that either does notpermit quantum tunneling or, at least, does not permit rapid quantumtunneling. In some embodiments, the change to the final state occursadiabatically.

Some embodiments of the present methods are universal quantum computersin the adiabatic quantum computing model. Some embodiments of thepresent methods include qubits with single-qubit Hamiltonian terms andat least one two-qubit Hamiltonian term.

A first aspect of the present methods is a method for quantum computingusing a quantum system comprising a plurality of superconducting qubits.The quantum system is characterized by an impedance. Also, the quantumsystem is capable of being in any one of at least two configurations atany given time. These at least two configurations include a firstconfiguration characterized by an initialization Hamiltonian H_(O) aswell as a second configuration characterized by a problem HamiltonianH_(P). The problem Hamiltonian has a ground state. Each respective firstsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits isarranged with respect to a respective second superconducting qubit inthe plurality of superconducting qubits such that the first respectivesuperconducting qubit and the corresponding second respectivesuperconducting qubit define a predetermined coupling strength. Thepredetermined coupling strengths between each of the first respectivesuperconducting qubit and corresponding second respectivesuperconducting qubit collectively define a computational problem to besolved. In this first aspect of the present methods, the methodcomprises initializing the quantum system to the initializationHamiltonian H_(O). The quantum system is then adiabatically changeduntil it is described by the ground state of the problem HamiltonianH_(P). The state of the quantum system is then read out by probing anobservable of the σ_(X) Pauli matrix operator.

In some embodiments in accordance with the above methods, the readingcomprises measuring an impedance of the quantum system. In someembodiments the reading comprises determining a state of asuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits. Insome embodiments, the reading differentiates a ground state of thesuperconducting qubit from an excited state of the superconductingqubit. In some embodiments, a superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is a persistent current qubit. In someembodiments, the reading measures a quantum state of the superconductingqubit as a presence or an absence of a voltage. In some embodiments, asuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits iscapable of tunneling between a first stable state and a second stablestate when the quantum system is in the first configuration.

In some embodiments, a superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is capable of tunneling between a first stablestate and a second stable state during the adiabatic changing. In someembodiments, the adiabatic changing occurs during a time period that isbetween 1 nanosecond and 100 microseconds. In some embodiments, theinitializing includes applying a magnetic field to the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits in the direction of a vector that isperpendicular to a plane defined by the plurality of superconductingqubits. In some embodiments, a superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is a persistent current qubit.

A second aspect of the present methods provides a method for quantumcomputing using a quantum system that comprises a plurality ofsuperconducting qubits. The quantum system is coupled to an impedancereadout device. The quantum system is capable of being in any one of atleast two configurations at any given time. The at least twoconfigurations include a first configuration characterized by aninitialization Hamiltonian H₀, and a second Hamiltonian characterized bya problem Hamiltonian H_(P). The problem Hamiltonian H_(P) has a groundstate. Each respective first superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is arranged with respect to a respective secondsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits suchthat the first respective superconducting qubit and the secondrespective superconducting qubit define a predetermined couplingstrength. The predetermined coupling strength between each firstrespective superconducting qubit and corresponding second respectivesuperconducting qubit collectively define a computational problem to besolved. These methods may comprise initializing the quantum system tothe initialization Hamiltonian H_(O). Then the quantum system isadiabatically changed until it is described by the ground state of theproblem Hamiltonian H_(P). The state of the quantum system is then readout through the impedance readout device thereby solving thecomputational problem.

In some embodiments in accordance with these methods, the readingmeasures a quantum state of a superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits as a presence or an absence of a voltage. In someembodiments, the reading differentiates a ground state of thesuperconducting qubit from an excited state of the superconductingqubit. In some embodiments, a superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is (i) a phase qubit in the charge regime or (ii)a persistent current qubit. In some embodiments, a superconducting qubitin the plurality of superconducting qubits is capable of tunnelingbetween a first stable state and a second stable state when the quantumsystem is in the first configuration. In some embodiments, asuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits iscapable of tunneling between a first stable state and a second stablestate during the adiabatic changing. In some embodiments, the adiabaticchanging occurs during a time period that is greater than 1 nanosecondand less than 100 microseconds. In some embodiments, the initializingincludes applying a magnetic field to the plurality of superconductingqubits in the direction of a vector that is perpendicular to a planedefined by the plurality of superconducting qubits. In some embodiments,a superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits is apersistent current qubit.

A third aspect of the present methods provides a method of determining aquantum state of a first target superconducting qubit. The methodcomprises presenting a plurality of superconducting qubits including afirst target superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconductingqubits. A problem Hamiltonian describes (i) the quantum state of theplurality of superconducting qubits and (ii) each coupling energybetween qubits in the plurality of qubits. The problem Hamiltonian is ator near a ground state. An rf-flux is added to the first targetsuperconducting qubit. The rf-flux has an amplitude that is less thanone flux quantum. An amount of an additional flux in the first targetsuperconducting qubit is adiabatically varied. A presence or an absenceof a dip in a voltage response of a tank circuit that is inductivelycoupled with the first target superconducting qubit during theadiabatically varying is observed thereby determining the quantum stateof the first target superconducting qubit.

In some embodiments in accordance with these methods, eachsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits is in aquantum ground state during all or a portion of the adding, theadiabatically varying, and the observing. In some embodiments, theproblem Hamiltonian corresponds to a terminus of an adiabatic evolutionof the plurality of superconducting qubits. In some embodiments, themethod further comprises biasing all or a portion of the superconductingqubits in the plurality of superconducting qubits. The problemHamiltonian further describes a biasing on the first targetsuperconducting qubit. In some embodiments, an energy of the biasingexceeds the tunneling energy of a tunneling element of the Hamiltonianof the first target superconducting qubit, thereby causing tunneling tobe suppressed in the first target superconducting qubit during aninstance of the biasing, adding and the adiabatically varying.

In some embodiments in accordance with this third aspect of the presentmethods, the method further comprises adiabatically removing additionalflux that was added to the first target superconducting qubit during theadiabatically varying. In some embodiments, the adiabatically varyingcomprises adiabatically varying the additional flux in accordance with awaveform selected from the group consisting of periodic, sinusoidal,triangular, and trapezoidal. In some embodiments, the adiabaticallyvarying comprises adiabatically varying the additional flux inaccordance with a low harmonic Fourier approximation of a waveformselected from the group consisting of periodic, sinusoidal, triangular,and trapezoidal. In some embodiments, the additional flux has adirection that is deemed positive or negative. In some embodiments, theadiabatically varying is characterized by a waveform that has anamplitude that grows with time. The amplitude of the waveformcorresponds to an amount of additional flux that is added to the firsttarget superconducting qubit during the adiabatically varying. In someembodiments, the additional flux has an equilibrium point that varieswith time. In some embodiments, the additional flux is eitherunidirectional or bidirectional. In some embodiments, the additionalflux has a frequency of oscillation between about 1 cycle per second andabout 100 kilocycles per second.

In some embodiments in accordance with the third aspect of the presentmethods, the adding comprises adding the rf-flux using (i) an excitationdevice that is inductively coupled to the first target superconductingqubit or (ii) a the tank circuit. In some embodiments, the methodfurther comprises repeating the adding and the adiabatically varyingbetween 1 time and 100 times. In such embodiments, the presence orabsence of the dip in the voltage response of the tank circuit isobserved as an average of the voltage response of the tank circuitacross each instance of the adiabatically varying.

In some embodiments in accordance with the third aspect of the presentmethods, the first target superconducting qubit is flipped from anoriginal basis state to an alternate basis state during theadiabatically varying. The method further comprises returning the firsttarget superconducting qubit to its original basis state byadiabatically removing additional flux in the qubit after theadiabatically varying. In some embodiments, the adiabatically varyingdoes not alter the quantum state of each of superconducting qubits inthe plurality of superconducting qubits other than the first targetsuperconducting qubit. In some embodiments, the method further comprisesrecording a presence or an absence of the dip in the voltage response ofthe tank circuit.

In some embodiments in accordance with the third aspect of the presentmethods, the method further comprises adding a second rf-flux to asecond target superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconductingqubits. The second rf-flux has an amplitude that is less than one fluxquantum. Then an amount of a second additional flux in the second targetsuperconducting qubit is adiabatically varied. A presence or an absenceof a second dip in a voltage response of a tank circuit that isinductively coupled with the second target superconducting qubit duringthe adiabatically varying is observed, thereby determining the quantumstate of the second target superconducting qubit.

In some embodiments in accordance with the third aspect of the presentmethods, the method further comprises designating a differentsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits as thefirst target superconducting qubit. The adding and the adiabaticallyvarying are then reperformed with the different superconducting qubit asthe first target superconducting qubit. The designating and reperformingare repeated until all or a portion (e.g., most, almost all, at leasteighty percent) of the superconducting qubits in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits have been designated as the first targetsuperconducting qubit.

In some embodiments in accordance with the third aspect of the presentmethods, a tank circuit is inductively coupled with the first targetsuperconducting qubit. The method further comprises performing anadiabatic quantum computation for an amount of time with the pluralityof superconducting qubits prior to the adding. The amount of time isdetermined by a factor the magnitude of which is a function of a numberof qubits in the plurality of superconducting qubits. An amount of anadditional flux in the first target superconducting qubit isadiabatically varied. Then, a presence or an absence of a dip in thevoltage response of a tank circuit during the adiabatically varying isobserved, thereby determining the quantum state of the first targetsuperconducting qubit. In some embodiments, the presence of a dip in thevoltage response of the tank circuit corresponds to the first targetsuperconducting qubit being in a first basis state. The absence of a dipin the voltage response of the tank circuit corresponds to the targetsuperconducting qubit being in a second basis state.

In some embodiments in accordance with the third aspect of the presentmethods, the adiabatically varying further comprises identifying anequilibrium point for the additional flux using an approximateevaluation method. In some embodiments, the method further comprisesclassifying the state of the first target qubit as being in the firstbasis state when the dip in the voltage across the tank circuit occursto the left of the equilibrium point and classifying the state of thefirst target qubit as being in the second basis state when the dip inthe voltage across the tank circuit occurs to the right of theequilibrium point.

A fourth aspect of the present methods comprises a method for adiabaticquantum computing using a quantum system comprising a plurality ofsuperconducting qubits. The quantum system is capable of being in anyone of at least two quantum configurations at any give time. The atleast two quantum configurations include a first configuration describedby an initialization Hamiltonian H_(O) and a second configurationdescribed by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P). The Hamiltonian H_(P) has aground state. The method comprises initializing the quantum system tothe first configuration. Then the quantum system is adiabaticallychanged until it is described by the ground state of the problemHamiltonian H_(P). Then the state of the quantum system is read out.

In some embodiments in accordance with the fourth aspect of the presentmethods, each respective first superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is arranged with respect to a respective secondsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits suchthat the first respective superconducting qubit and the correspondingsecond respective superconducting qubit define a predetermined couplingstrength. The predetermined coupling strength between each of the firstrespective superconducting qubits and corresponding second respectivesuperconducting qubits in the plurality of superconducting qubitscollectively define a computational problem to be solved. In someinstances, the problem Hamiltonian H_(P) comprises a tunneling term foreach of the respective superconducting qubits in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits. The energy of the tunneling term for eachrespective superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconductingqubits is less than the average of the predetermined coupling strengthsbetween each of the first respective superconducting qubits and secondrespective superconducting qubits in the plurality of superconductingqubits.

In some embodiments in accordance with the fourth aspect of the presentmethods, the reading out comprises probing an observable of the σ_(X)Pauli matrix operator or σ_(Z) Pauli matrix operator. In someembodiments, a tank circuit is in inductive communication with all or aportion of the superconducting qubits in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits. In such embodiments, the reading out comprisesmeasuring a voltage across the tank circuit. In some embodiments, thesuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits is apersistent current qubit.

A fifth aspect of the present methods provides a structure for adiabaticquantum computing comprising a plurality of superconducting qubits. Theplurality of superconducting qubits is capable of being in any one of atleast two configurations at any give time. The at least twoconfigurations include a first configuration characterized by aninitialization Hamiltonian H₀ and a second Hamiltonian characterized bya problem Hamiltonian H_(P). The problem Hamiltonian has a ground state.Each respective first superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is coupled with a respective secondsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits suchthat the first respective superconducting qubit and the correspondingsecond respective superconducting qubit define a predetermined couplingstrength. The predetermined coupling strength between each of the firstrespective superconducting qubits and the corresponding secondrespective superconducting qubits collectively define a computationalproblem to be solved. A tank circuit is inductively coupled to all or aportion of the plurality of superconducting qubits.

In some embodiments in accordance with the fifth aspect of the presentmethods, a superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconductingqubits is a persistent current qubit. In some embodiments, the tankcircuit has a quality factor that is greater than 1000. In someembodiments, the tank circuit comprises an inductive element. Theinductive element comprises a pancake coil of superconducting material.In some embodiments, the pancake coil of a superconducting materialcomprising a first turn and a second turn. The superconducting materialof the pancake coil is niobium. Furthermore, there is a spacing of 1about micrometer between the first turn and the second turn of thepancake coil.

In some embodiments in accordance with the fifth aspect of the presentmethods, the tank circuit comprises an inductive element and acapacitive element that are arranged in parallel or in series withrespect to each other. In some embodiments, the tank circuit comprisesan inductive element and a capacitive element that are arranged inparallel with respect to each other and the tank circuit has aninductance between about 50 nanohenries and about 250 nanohenries. Insome embodiments, the tank circuit comprises an inductive element and acapacitive element that are arranged in parallel with respect to eachother and the tank circuit has a capacitance between about 50 picofaradsand about 2000 picofarads. In some embodiments, the tank circuitcomprises an inductive element and a capacitive element that arearranged in parallel with respect to each other and the tank circuit hasa resonance frequency between about 10 megahertz and about 20 megahertz.In some embodiments, the tank circuit has a resonance frequency f_(T)that is determined by the equality:f _(T)=ω_(T)/2π=1/√{square root over (L _(T) C _(T))}such that

-   -   L_(T) is an inductance of the tank circuit; and    -   C_(T) is a capacitance of the tank circuit.

In some embodiments in accordance with the fifth aspect of the presentmethods, the tank circuit comprises one or more Josephson junctions. Insome embodiments, the structure further comprises means for biasing theone or more Josephson junctions of the tank circuit. In someembodiments, the structure further comprises an amplifier connectedacross the tank circuit in such a manner that the amplifier can detect achange in voltage across the tank circuit. In some embodiments, theamplifier comprises a high electron mobility field-effect transistor(HEMT) or a pseudomorphic high electron mobility field-effect transistor(PHEMT). In some embodiments, the amplifier comprises a multi-stageamplifier. In some embodiments, the multi-stage amplifier comprises two,three, or four transistors. In some embodiments, structure furthercomprises a helium-3 pot of a dilution refrigerator that is thermallycoupled to all or a portion of the plurality of superconducting qubits.to.

In some embodiments in accordance with the fifth aspect of the presentmethods, the structure further comprising means for driving the tankcircuit by a direct bias current I_(DC). In some embodiments, thestructure further comprises means for driving the tank circuit by analternating current I_(RF) of a frequency ω close to the resonancefrequency ω₀ of the tank circuit. In some embodiments, the totalexternally applied magnetic flux to a superconducting qubit in theplurality of superconducting qubits, Φ_(E), isΦ_(E)=Φ_(DC)+Φ_(RF)where,

Φ_(RF) is an amount of applied magnetic flux contributed to thesuperconducting qubit by the alternating current I_(RF); and

Φ_(DC) is an amount of applied magnetic flux that is determined by thedirect bias current I_(DC). In some embodiments, the structure furthercomprises means for applying a magnetic field on the superconductingqubit, and whereinΦ_(DC)=Φ_(A) +f(t)Φ₀,where,

Φ₀ is one flux quantum;

f(t)Φ₀ is constant or is slowly varying and is generated by the directbias current I_(DC); andΦ_(A) =B _(A) ×L _(Q),such that

B_(A) is a magnitude of the magnetic field applied on thesuperconducting qubit by the means for applying the magnetic field; and

L_(Q) is an inductance of the superconducting qubit.

In some embodiments f(t) has a value between 0 and. In some embodiments,the means for applying a magnetic field on the superconducting qubitcomprises a bias line that is magnetically coupled to thesuperconducting qubit. In some embodiments, the means for applying amagnetic field on the superconducting qubit is an excitation device. Insome embodiments, Φ_(RF) has a magnitude between about 10⁻⁵Φ₀ and about10⁻¹Φ₀. In some embodiments, the structure further comprises means forvarying f(t), Φ_(A), and/or Φ_(RF). In some embodiments, the structurefurther comprises means for varying Φ_(RF) in accordance with a smallamplitude fast function. In some embodiments, the means for varyingΦ_(RF) in accordance with a small amplitude fast function is a microwavegenerator that is in electrical communication with the tank circuit.

In some embodiments in accordance with the fifth aspect of the presentmethods, the structure further comprises an amplifier connected acrossthe tank circuit and means for measuring a total impedance of the tankcircuit, expressed through the phase angle χ between driving currentI_(RF) and the tank voltage. In some embodiments, the means formeasuring a total impedance of the tank circuit is an oscilloscope.

A sixth aspect of the present methods provides a computer programproduct for use in conjunction with a computer system. The computerprogram product comprises a computer readable storage medium and acomputer program mechanism embedded therein. The computer programmechanism comprises instructions for initializing a quantum systemcomprising a plurality of superconducting qubits to an initializationHamiltonian H_(O). The quantum system is capable of being in one of atleast two configurations at any give time. The at least twoconfigurations include a first configuration characterized by theinitialization Hamiltonian H_(O) and a second configurationcharacterized by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P). Each respective firstsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits isarranged with respect to a respective second superconducting qubit inthe plurality of superconducting qubits such that the first respectivesuperconducting qubit and the second respective superconducting qubitdefine a predetermined coupling strength. The predetermined couplingstrengths between each of the first respective superconducting qubitsand the second respective superconducting qubits collectively define acomputational problem to be solved. The computer program mechanismfurther comprises instructions for adiabatically changing the quantumsystem until it is described by the ground state of the problemHamiltonian H_(P) and instructions for reading out the state of thequantum system.

In some embodiments in accordance with this sixth aspect of the presentmethods, the computer program mechanism further comprises instructionsfor repeating the instructions for biasing, instructions for adding, andinstructions for adiabatically varying between 1 time and 100 timesinclusive. The presence or absence of the voltage response of the tankcircuit is observed as an average of the voltage response of the tankcircuit to each instance of the instructions for adiabatically changingthat are executed by the instructions for repeating.

A seventh aspect of the present methods comprises a computer programproduct for use in conjunction with a computer system. The computerprogram product comprises a computer readable storage medium and acomputer program mechanism embedded therein. The computer programmechanism determines a quantum state of a first target superconductingqubit in a plurality of superconducting qubits. The computer programmechanism comprises instructions for initializing a plurality ofsuperconducting qubits so that they are described by a problemHamiltonian. The problem Hamiltonian describes (i) the quantum state ofthe plurality of superconducting qubits and (ii) each coupling energybetween qubits in the plurality of qubits. The problem Hamiltonian is ator near a ground state. The computer program mechanism further comprisesinstructions for adding an rf-flux to the first target superconductingqubit. The rf-flux has an amplitude that is less than one flux quantum.The computer program mechanism further comprises instructions foradiabatically varying an amount of an additional flux in the firsttarget superconducting qubit and observing a presence or an absence of adip in a voltage response of a tank circuit that is inductively coupledwith the first target superconducting qubit during the adiabaticallyvarying.

In some embodiments in accordance with this seventh aspect of thepresent methods, each superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is in a quantum ground state during all or aportion of the instructions for initializing, instructions for adding,and the instructions for adiabatically varying. In some embodiments, theproblem Hamiltonian corresponds to a terminus of an adiabatic evolutionof the plurality of superconducting qubits. In some embodiments, thecomputer program product further comprises instructions for biasing allor a portion of the superconducting qubits in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits. In such embodiments, the problem Hamiltonianadditionally describes the biasing on the qubits in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits. In some embodiments, an energy of the biasingexceeds the tunneling energy of a tunneling element of the Hamiltonianof a superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubitsthereby causing tunneling to be suppressed in the superconducting qubitduring an instance of the instructions for biasing, instructions foradding and the instructions for adiabatically varying.

In some embodiments in accordance with the seventh aspect of the presentmethods, the computer program mechanism further comprises instructionsfor adiabatically removing additional flux that was added to the firsttarget superconducting qubit during the instructions for adiabaticallyvarying. In some embodiments, the instructions for adiabatically varyingcomprise instructions for adiabatically varying the additional flux inaccordance with a waveform selected from the group consisting ofperiodic, sinusoidal, triangular, and trapezoidal. In some embodiments,the instructions for adiabatically varying comprise instructions foradiabatically varying the additional flux in accordance with a lowharmonic Fourier approximation of a waveform selected from the groupconsisting of periodic, sinusoidal, triangular, and trapezoidal. In someembodiments, the additional flux has a direction that is deemed positiveor negative. In some embodiments, the instructions for adiabaticallyvarying are characterized by a waveform that has an amplitude that growswith time and such that the amplitude of the waveform corresponds to anamount of additional flux that is added to the first targetsuperconducting qubit during an instance of the instructions foradiabatically varying.

In some embodiments in accordance with the seventh aspect of the presentmethods, the additional flux has an equilibrium point that varies withtime. In some embodiments, the additional flux is either unidirectionalor bidirectional. In some embodiments, the additional flux has afrequency of oscillation between about 1 cycle per second and about 100kilocycles per second. In some embodiments, the instructions for addingcomprise instructions for adding the rf-flux using (i) an excitationdevice that is inductively coupled to the first target superconductingqubit or (ii) the tank circuit. In some embodiments, the computerprogram mechanism further comprises instructions for repeating theinstructions for adding and the instructions for adiabatically varyingbetween 1 time and 100 times. In such embodiments, the presence orabsence of the voltage response of the tank circuit is observed as anaverage of the voltage response of the tank circuit across each instanceof the instructions for adiabatically varying that is executed by theinstructions for repeating.

An eighth aspect of the present methods comprises a computer system fordetermining a quantum state of a first target superconducting qubit in aplurality of superconducting qubits. The computer system comprises acentral processing unit and a memory, coupled to the central processingunit. The memory stores instructions for biasing all or a portion of thequbits in the plurality of superconducting qubits other than the firsttarget superconducting qubit. A problem Hamiltonian describes (i) thebiasing on the qubits in the plurality of superconducting qubits and(ii) each coupling energy between respective superconducting qubit pairsin the plurality of superconducting qubits. The problem Hamiltonian isat or near a ground state. The memory further stores instructions foradding an rf-flux to the first target superconducting qubit. The rf-fluxhas an amplitude that is less than one flux quantum. The memory furtherstores instructions for adiabatically varying an amount of an additionalflux in the first target superconducting qubit and observing a presenceor an absence of a dip in a voltage response of a tank circuit that isinductively coupled with the first target superconducting qubit during atime when the instructions for adiabatically varying are executed.

A ninth aspect of the present methods provides a computation device foradiabatic quantum computing comprising a plurality of superconductingqubits. Each superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconductingqubits comprises two basis states associated with the eigenstates of aσ^(Z) Pauli matrix that can be biased. The quantum computation devicefurther comprises a plurality of couplings. Each coupling in theplurality of couplings is disposed between a superconducting qubit pairin the plurality of superconducting qubits. Each term Hamiltonian for acoupling in the plurality of couplings has a principal componentproportional to σ^(Z)

σ^(Z). The sign for at least one principal component proportional toσ^(Z)

σ^(Z) for a coupling in the plurality of couplings is antiferromagnetic.The superconducting qubits and the plurality of couplings arecollectively capable of being in any one of at least two configurations.The at least two configurations include a first configurationcharacterized by an initialization Hamiltonian H₀ and a secondHamiltonian characterized by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P). The problemHamiltonian has a ground state. Each respective first superconductingqubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits is coupled with arespective second superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits such that the first respective superconductingqubit and the corresponding second respective superconducting qubitdefine a predetermined coupling strength. The predetermined couplingstrength between each of the first respective superconducting qubits andthe corresponding second respective superconducting qubits collectivelydefine a computational problem to be solved. The computation devicefurther comprises a read out circuit coupled to at least onesuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits.

A tenth aspect of the present methods comprises an apparatus comprisinga plurality of superconducting charge qubits. Each respective firstsuperconducting charge qubit in the plurality of superconducting chargequbits is coupled with a respective second superconducting charge qubitin the plurality of superconducting charge qubits such that the firstrespective superconducting charge qubit and the second respectivesuperconducting charge qubit define a predetermined coupling strength.The predetermined coupling strength between each of the first respectivesuperconducting charge qubits and each of the second respectivesuperconducting charge qubits in the plurality of superconducting chargequbits collectively define a computational problem to be solved. Eachsuperconducting charge qubit in the plurality of superconducting chargequbits is capable of being in one of at least two configurations. Theseat least two configurations include a first configuration in accordancewith an initialization Hamiltonian H₀ and a second configuration inaccordance with a problem Hamiltonian H_(P). The apparatus furthercomprises an electrometer coupled to a superconducting charge qubit inthe plurality of superconducting charge qubits.

In some embodiments in accordance with this tenth aspect of the presentmethods, a superconducting charge qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits comprises (i) a mesoscopic island made ofsuperconducting material, (ii) superconducting reservoir, and (iii) aJosephson junction connecting the mesoscopic island to thesuperconducting reservoir. In some embodiments, the Josephson junctionis a split Josephson junction. In some embodiments, the superconductingcharge qubit further comprises a flux source configured to apply flux tothe split Josephson junction.

In some embodiments in accordance with the tenth aspect of the presentmethods, the apparatus further comprises a generator capacitivelycoupled to a superconducting charge qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits by a capacitor. In some embodiments, thegenerator is configured to apply a plurality of electrostatic pulses tothe superconducting charge qubit. The plurality of electrostatic pulsesadditionally define the computational problem.

In some embodiments in accordance with the tenth aspect of the presentmethods, the apparatus further comprises a variable electrostatictransformer disposed between a first superconducting charge qubit and asecond superconducting charge qubit in the plurality of superconductingcharge qubits such that the predetermined coupling strength between thefirst superconducting charge qubit and the second superconducting chargequbit is tunable. In some embodiments, each respective firstsuperconducting charge qubit in the plurality of superconducting chargequbits is arranged with respect to a respective second superconductingcharge qubit in the plurality of superconducting charge qubits such thatthe plurality of superconducting charge qubits collectively form anon-planar graph.

An eleventh aspect of the present methods provides a method forcomputing using a quantum system comprising a plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits. The quantum system is coupled to anelectrometer and the quantum system is capable of being in any one of atleast two configurations. The at least two configurations includes afirst configuration characterized by an initialization Hamiltonian H₀and a second configuration characterized by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P).The problem Hamiltonian has a ground state. The plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits are arranged with respect to one another,with a predetermined number of couplings between respective pairs ofsuperconducting charge qubits in the plurality of charge qubits, suchthat the plurality of superconducting charge qubits, coupled by thepredetermined number of couplings, collectively define a computationalproblem to be solved. The method comprises initializing the quantumsystem to the initialization Hamiltonian H_(O). Then the quantum systemis adiabatically changed until it is described by the ground state ofthe problem Hamiltonian H_(P). Next the quantum state of eachsuperconducting charge qubit in the quantum system is read out throughthe electrometer, thereby solving the computational problem to besolved.

In some embodiments in accordance with the eleventh aspect of thepresent methods, a first superconducting charge qubit in the pluralityof superconducting charge qubits is coupled to a second superconductingcharge qubit in the plurality of superconducting charge qubits by acapacitor such that the predetermined coupling strength between thefirst superconducting charge qubit and the second superconducting chargequbit is predetermined and is a function of the physical properties ofthe capacitor.

In some embodiments in accordance with the eleventh aspect of thepresent methods, a first superconducting charge qubit in the pluralityof superconducting charge qubits is coupled to a generator by a deviceconfigured to provide a tunable effective charging energy. The devicecomprises a capacitor and the method further comprises: tuning the valueof the effective charging energy of the first superconducting chargequbit by varying the gate voltage on the capacitor of the device. Insome embodiments, a superconducting charge qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits comprises a split Josephson junctionhaving a variable effective Josephson energy. In such embodiments, themethod further comprises tuning the value of the effective Josephsonenergy of the superconducting charge qubit by varying a flux applied tothe split Josephson junction. In some embodiments, the firstconfiguration is reached by setting the effective Josephson energy ofthe superconducting charge qubit to a maximum value.

In some embodiments in accordance with the eleventh aspect of thepresent methods, the adiabatically changing comprises changing theconfiguration of the system from the first configuration characterizedby the initialization Hamiltonian H₀, to the second Hamiltoniancharacterized by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P) in the presence oftunneling on a superconducting charge qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits.

In some embodiments in accordance with a eleventh aspect of the presentmethods, a first superconducting charge qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits is characterized by (i) an effectiveJosephson energy that is tunable and (ii) an effective charging energythat is tunable. A minimum value of the effective Josephson energy isless than the effective charging energy of the first superconductingcharge qubit. A minimum value of the effective Josephson energy is lessthan a strength of a coupling between the first superconducting chargequbit and a second superconducting charge qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits. The effective charging energy is, atmost, equal to a maximum value of the effective Josephson energy of thefirst superconducting charge qubit. Furthermore, a strength of acoupling between the first superconducting charge qubit and a secondsuperconducting charge qubit in the plurality of superconducting chargequbits is, at most, equal to a maximum value of the effective Josephsonenergy of the first superconducting charge qubit.

In still another embodiment in accordance with the eleventh aspect ofthe present methods, a first superconducting charge qubit in theplurality of superconducting charge qubits is characterized by (i) aneffective Josephson energy that is tunable and (ii) an effectivecharging energy that is tunable. In such embodiments, the adiabaticallychanging comprises adiabatically tuning the effective Josephson energyof the first superconducting charge qubit such that the effectiveJosephson energy of the first superconducting charge qubit reaches aminimum value when the quantum system is described by the ground stateof the problem Hamiltonian H_(P).

In some embodiments in accordance with the eleventh aspect of thepresent methods, a first superconducting charge qubit in the pluralityof superconducting charge qubits has a first basis state and a secondbasis state and, when the quantum system is described by the groundstate of the problem Hamiltonian H_(P), tunneling between the firstbasis state and the second basis state of the first superconductingcharge qubit does not occur.

In some embodiments in accordance with the eleventh aspect of thepresent methods, a first superconducting charge qubit in the pluralityof superconducting charge qubits has a first basis state and a secondbasis state and, when the quantum system is described by the groundstate of the problem Hamiltonian H_(P), the tunneling between the firstbasis state and the second basis state of the first superconductingcharge qubit does occur. Furthermore, the reading out comprises probingan observable of the sigma-x Pauli matrix σ^(X).

In some embodiments in accordance with the eleventh aspect of thepresent methods, a first superconducting charge qubit in the pluralityof superconducting charge qubits is characterized by (i) an effectiveJosephson energy that is tunable and (ii) an effective charging energythat is tunable. In such embodiments, a minimum value of the effectiveJosephson energy is less than the effective charging energy of the firstsuperconducting charge qubit; a minimum value of effective Josephsonenergy is less than a strength of a coupling between the firstsuperconducting charge qubit and a second superconducting charge qubitin the plurality of superconducting charge qubits; the effectivecharging energy is greater than a maximum value of the effectiveJosephson energy of the first superconducting charge qubit; and astrength of a coupling between the first superconducting charge qubitand a second superconducting charge qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting charge qubits is, at most, equal to the maximumeffective Josephson energy of the first superconducting charge qubit. Insome such embodiments, the initializing comprises setting the effectivecharging energy of the first superconducting charge qubit to a minimumvalue. In some such embodiments, the adiabatically changing comprisesadiabatically tuning the effective Josephson energy of the firstsuperconducting charge qubit such that the effective Josephson energy isat a minimum value when the quantum system is described by the groundstate of the problem Hamiltonian H_(P), and adiabatically increasing theeffective charging energy of the first superconducting charge qubit.

In some embodiments in accordance with the eleventh aspect of thepresent methods, a first superconducting charge qubit in the pluralityof superconducting charge qubits is characterized by an effectiveJosephson energy that is tunable. The initializing comprises setting theeffective Josephson energy of the first superconducting charge qubit toa minimum value, and the adiabatically changing comprises (i)adiabatically tuning the effective Josephson energy of the firstsuperconducting charge qubit such that the effective Josephson energy isgreater than a minimum value for a period of time before the quantumsystem is described by the ground state of the problem HamiltonianH_(P), and adiabatically tuning the effective Josephson energy of thefirst superconducting charge qubit such that the effective Josephsonenergy is at a minimum value when the quantum system is described by theground state of the problem Hamiltonian H_(P).

In a twelfth aspect of the present methods, a quantum system comprisinga plurality of superconducting qubits is initialized to a ground stateof a first configuration, characterized by an initialization HamiltonianH_(O), and is adiabatically evolved to a ground state of a secondconfiguration, defining a computational problem to be solved,characterized by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P). During adiabatic evolutionof the quantum system, the quantum system is characterized by anevolution Hamiltonian H that has an energy spectrum having at least oneanticrossing. The adiabatic evolution comprises increasing the gap sizeof an anticrossing by changing a parameter of the quantum system.

In a thirteenth aspect of the present methods, a quantum systemcomprising a plurality of superconducting qubits is initialized to aground state of a first configuration characterized by an initializationHamiltonian H_(O), and is adiabatically evolved to a ground state of asecond configuration, defining a computational problem to be solved,characterized by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P). During adiabatic evolutionof the quantum system, the quantum system is characterized by anevolution Hamiltonian H that has an energy spectrum having at least oneanticrossing. The adiabatic evolution comprises controlling the rate ofadiabatic evolution via an evolution rate parameter γ(t) that rangesbetween about 0 and 1, wherein the rate of change of the parameter isreduced during adiabatic evolution in a vicinity of an anticrossing.

In a fourteenth aspect of the present methods, a quantum systemcomprising a plurality of superconducting qubits is initialized to aground state of a first configuration, characterized by aninitialization Hamiltonian H_(O) and is adiabatically evolved to aground state of a second configuration, defining a computational problemto be solved characterized by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P). Duringadiabatic evolution of the quantum system, the quantum system ischaracterized by an evolution Hamiltonian H that has an energy spectrumhaving at least one anticrossing. The adiabatic evolution comprisesincreasing the gap size of an anticrossing by changing a parameter ofthe quantum system and controlling the rate of adiabatic evolution viaan evolution rate parameter γ(t), where the rate of change of theparameter is reduced during the adiabatic evolution in the vicinity ofan anticrossing.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1A illustrates a known superconducting qubit.

FIG. 1B illustrates a known energy potential for a superconductingqubit.

FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary quantum computation circuit model inaccordance with the prior art.

FIG. 3 illustrates a known general equation that describes the theory ofadiabatic quantum computing.

FIG. 4 illustrates a work flow diagram for a process of adiabaticquantum computing.

FIGS. 5A-5E illustrates arrangements of superconducting qubits foradiabatic quantum computing in accordance with some embodiments of thepresent methods.

FIGS. 6A-6B illustrate a graph of Hamiltonian coefficients duringadiabatic computation in accordance with some embodiments of the presentmethods.

FIG. 7A illustrates an energy level diagram for a system comprising aplurality of superconducting qubits during an instantaneous adiabaticchange of the system.

FIG. 7B illustrates an energy level diagram for a system comprising aplurality of superconducting qubits when the plurality of qubits aredescribed by the ground state of a problem Hamiltonian H_(P).

FIG. 8 illustrates a device for controlling and reading out the state ofa superconducting qubit for adiabatic quantum computing in accordancewith some embodiments of the present methods.

FIG. 9A illustrates an energy level diagram for a physical system inwhich the energy level diagram exhibits an anticrossing between energylevels of the physical system in accordance with an embodiment of thepresent methods.

FIG. 9B illustrates an energy level diagram for a physical system havingan energy level crossing in accordance with an embodiment of the presentmethods.

FIG. 10A illustrates the form of a readout signal for a superconductingqubit having an anticrossing between two energy levels.

FIG. 10B illustrates the form of a readout signal for a superconductingqubit having that does not have anticrossing between two energy levels.

FIG. 11 illustrates a system that is operated in accordance with someembodiments of the present methods.

Like reference numerals refer to corresponding parts throughout theseveral views of the drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Systems and methods for adiabatic quantum computing usingsuperconducting qubits are provided. In various embodiments of thepresent methods, adiabatic quantum computing is performed on registersof superconducting qubits that have demonstrated quantum computingfunctionality. Adiabatic quantum computing is a model of quantumcomputing that can be used to attempt to find solutions forcomputationally difficult problems.

General Embodiments

When choosing a candidate system for adiabatic quantum computing thereare some criteria may be observed. One criterion is that the readoutdevice may be a Stern-Gerlach σ^(Z) type observation. A second criterionis that the tunneling term in the problem Hamiltonian may be about zero.For H_(P)=Δσ^(X)+εσ^(Z) then Δ≈0. A third criterion is that themagnitude of the tunneling term in the problem, initial, or extraHamiltonian (H_(P), H₀, H_(E)) may be tunable. A fourth criterion isthat the qubit-qubit coupling may be diagonal in the basis of finalqubit states, i.e., σ^(Z)

σ^(Z). Because an Ising model with ferromagnetic couplings has a trivialground state, all spins aligned, a fifth criterion is that the systemmay have some antiferromagnetic (AFM) coupling between qubits. Some AFMcouplings include the case where all are antiferromagnetic. Also,ferromagnetic (FM) couplings have a negative sign −Jσ^(Z)

σ^(Z), and antiferromagnetic couplings have a positive sign Jσ^(Z)

σ^(Z).

Some embodiments of the present methods adhere to the above criteria,where other embodiments do not. It is possible to have the tunnelingterm in the problem Hamiltonian be, not zero, but weak, for phasequbits, e.g., for H_(P)=Δσ^(X)+εσ^(Z) then Δ<<ε. In such a case it ispossible for the readout device to probe a Stern-Gerlach σ^(X) typeobservable. Other embodiments of superconducting adiabatic quantumcomputers of the present methods do not adhere to the third criteriondescribed above where, for example, the magnitude of the tunneling termin the problem, initial, or extra Hamiltonian (H_(P), H₀, H_(E)) isfixed but the contribution of the problem, initial, or extra Hamiltonianto the instant Hamiltonian is tunable in such embodiments. Specificembodiments of the present methods are described below.

Exemplary General Procedure

In accordance with embodiments of the present methods, the generalprocedure of adiabatic quantum computing is shown in FIG. 4. At 401, aquantum system that will be used to solve a computation is selectedand/or constructed. In some embodiments, each problem or class ofproblems to be solved requires a custom quantum system designedspecifically to solve the problem. Once a quantum system has beenchosen, an initial state and a final state of the quantum system need tobe defined. The initial state is characterized by the initialHamiltonian H₀ and the final state is characterized by the finalHamiltonian H_(P) that encodes the computational problem to be solved.In some embodiments, the quantum system is initiated to the ground stateof the initial Hamiltonian H₀ and, when the system reaches the finalstate, it is in the ground state of the final Hamiltonian H_(P). Moredetails on how systems are selected and designed to solve acomputational problem are described below.

At 403, the quantum system is initialized to the ground state of thetime-independent Hamiltonian, H₀, which initially describes the quantumsystem. It is assumed that the ground state of H₀ is a state to whichthe system can be reliably reproduced.

In transition 404 between acts 403 and 405, the quantum system is actedupon in an adiabatic manner in order to alter the system. The systemchanges from being described by Hamiltonian H₀ to a description underH_(P). This change is adiabatic, as defined above, and occurs in aperiod of time T. In other words, the operator of an adiabatic quantumcomputer causes the system, and Hamiltonian H describing the system, tochange from H₀ to a final form H_(P) in time T. The change is aninterpolation between H₀ and H_(P). The change can be a linearinterpolation:H(t)=(1−γ(t))H ₀+γ(t)H _(P)where the adiabatic evolution parameter, γ(t), is a continuous functionwith γ(t=0)=0, and γ(t=T)=1. The change can be a linear interpolation,γ(t)=t/T such thatH(t/T)=(1−t/T)H ₀ +t/TH _(P).

In accordance with the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics, a systemwill remain in the ground state of H at every instance the system ischanged and after the change is complete, provided the change isadiabatic. In some embodiments of the present methods, the quantumsystem starts in an initial state H₀ that does not permit quantumtunneling, is perturbed in an adiabatic manner to an intermediate statethat permits quantum tunneling, and then is perturbed in an adiabaticmanner to the final state described above.

At 405, the quantum system has been altered to one that is described bythe final Hamiltonian. The final Hamiltonian H_(P) can encode theconstraints of a computational problem such that the ground state ofH_(P) corresponds to a solution to this problem. Hence, the finalHamiltonian is also called the problem Hamiltonian H_(P). If the systemis not in the ground state of H_(P), the state is an approximatesolution to the computational problem. Approximate solutions to manycomputational problems are useful and such embodiments are fully withinthe scope of the present methods.

At 407, the system described by the final Hamiltonian H_(P) is read out.The read out can be in the σ^(Z) basis of the qubits. If the read outbasis commutes with the terms of the problem Hamiltonian H_(p), thenperforming a read out operation does not disturb the ground state of thesystem. The read out method can take many forms. The object of the readout is to determine exactly or approximately the ground state of thesystem. The states of all qubits are represented by the vector {rightarrow over (O)}, which gives a concise image of the ground state orapproximate ground state of the system. The read out method can comparethe energies of various states of the system. More examples are givenbelow, making use of specific qubits for better description.

Changing a Quantum System Adiabatically

In one embodiment of the present methods, the natural quantum mechanicalevolution of the quantum system under the slowly changing HamiltonianH(t) carries the initial state H₀ of the quantum system into a finalstate, which may be the ground state of H_(P) in some embodiments,corresponding to the solution of the problem defined by the quantumsystem. A measurement of the final state of the quantum system revealsthe solution to the computational problem encoded in the problemHamiltonian. In such embodiments, an aspect that can define the successof the process is how quickly (or slowly) the change between the initialHamiltonian and problem Hamiltonian occurs. How quickly one can drivethe interpolation between H₀ and H_(P), while keeping the system in theground state of the instantaneous Hamiltonians that the quantum systemtraverses through in route to H_(P), is a determination that can be madeusing the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics. This section providesa detailed explanation of the adiabatic theorem of quantum mechanics.More particularly, this section describes how quantum mechanics imposesconstraints on which quantum systems can be used in accordance with thepresent methods and how such quantum systems can be used to solvecomputational problems using the present methods.

A quantum system evolves under the Schrödinger equation:

$ {{{{i\frac{\partial}{\partial t} {\psi(t)} \rangle} = {{\Theta(t)}{H(t)}}}}{\psi(t)}} \rangle,$where Θ(t) and H(t) are respectively the time ordering operator andHamiltonian of the system. Adiabatic evolution is a special case whereH(t) is a slowly varying function. The time dependent basis states andenergy levels of the Hamiltonian are:H(t)|l; t

=E _(l)(t)|l; t

where l∈[0, N−1], and N is the dimension of the Hilbert space for thequantum system described by the Schrödinger equation. The energy levels,energies, or energy spectra of the quantum system E_(l)(t) are a set ofenergies that the system can occupy. The energies of the states are astrictly increasing set.

A general example of the adiabatic evolution of a quantum system is asfollows. The states |0;t

and |1;t

are respectively the ground and first excited states of HamiltonianH(t), with energies E₀(t) and E₁(t). Gap g(t) is the difference betweenenergies of the ground and first excited states as follows:g(t)=E ₁(t)−E ₀(t).

If the quantum system is initialized in the ground state and evolvedunder H(t), where H(t) is slowly varying, and if the gap is greater thanzero, then for 0≦t≦T the quantum system will remain in the ground state.In other words:|

E ₀ ;T|ψ(T)

²≧1−ε².

Without intending to be limited to any particular theory, it is believedthat the existence of the gap means that the quantum system under theSchrödinger equation remains in the ground state with high fidelity,e.g., 1−ε² (ε<<1). The fidelity of the operation can be foundquantitatively.

The minimum energy gap between the ground state E₀ and first excitedstate E₁ of the instantaneous Hamiltonian is given by g_(min) where:

$g_{\min} = {\min\limits_{0 \leq t \leq T}{\lbrack {{E_{1}(t)} - {E_{0}(t)}} \rbrack.}}$Also relevant is the matrix element:

$\langle \frac{\mathbb{d}H}{\mathbb{d}t} \rangle_{1,0} = {\langle {E_{1};{t{\frac{\mathbb{d}H}{\mathbb{d}t}}E_{0}};t} \rangle.}$

The adiabatic theorem asserts fidelity of the quantum system will beclose to unity provided that:

$\frac{\langle \frac{\mathbb{d}H}{\mathbb{d}t} \rangle_{1,0}}{g_{\min}^{2}} \leq ɛ$If this criterion is met, the quantum system will remain in the groundstate.

In an embodiment of the present methods, T is the time taken to vary acontrol parameter of a charge qubit, for example induced gate charge orflux for a charge qubit with split Josephson junction. In an embodimentof the present methods, time T is a value between about 0.1 nanosecondand about 500 microseconds. In other words, the amount of time betweenwhen the quantum system is allowed to begin adiabatically changing fromthe initial state H₀ to when the quantum system first reaches the finalstate H_(P) is between about 0.1 nanosecond and about 500 microseconds.In an embodiment of the present methods, time T is a value less than theinverse of the characteristic frequency of the physical systemcomprising superconducting qubits. The characteristic frequency of aqubit is the energy difference between a ground state and an excitedstate of a qubit. Thus, the characteristic frequency of a physicalsystem comprising qubits is the characteristic frequency of one or morequbits within the physical system.

In an embodiment of the present methods, T is the time taken to vary acontrol parameter of a phase qubit, for example flux in a persistentcurrent qubit. In an embodiment of the present methods, time T is avalue between about 0.1 nanosecond and about 500 microseconds. In otherwords, the amount of time between when the quantum system is allowed tobegin adiabatically changing from the initial state H₀ to when thequantum system first reaches the final state H_(P) is between about 0.1nanosecond and about 500 microseconds. In some embodiments, the time Tis calculated as the time at which a Landau-Zener transition is likelynot to occur. For more information on Landau-Zener transitions see, forexample, Garanin et al., 2002, Phys. Rev. B 66, 174438.

Application of Landau-Zener Theory

Most analyses of adiabatic algorithms emphasize how the gap, g(t), andthe ratio of the matrix element

dH/dt

_(1,0) to the square of the minimum of the gap, scale with increasingproblem size. It is believed that, by examining these metrics, thevalidity of adiabatic algorithms, and other adiabatic processes, can bedetermined. Some embodiments of the present methods make use of analternative analysis that looks at the probability of transition 404, orsome other process, being diabatic (i.e. a process that involves heattransfer as opposed to an adiabatic process that involves no heattransfer). Rather than calculating the minimum gap, which is thedifference between the energy of the ground and the first excited stateof a quantum system that models the problem to be solved, thisadditional analysis calculates the probability of a transition out ofthe ground state by the quantum system. In examples of the presentmethods, this probability calculation can be a more relevant metric forassessing the failure rate of the adiabatic algorithm or process. Toperform the computation, it is assumed that any diabatic transition (anytransition characterized by the transfer of heat) is a Landau-Zenertransition, e.g., a transition confined to adjacent levels atanticrossings. A description of anticrossing levels is provided below inconjunction with FIGS. 9A and 9B. When the state of a plurality ofqubits approaches an anticrossing, the probability for a transition outof the ground state can be parameterized by (i) the minimum of the gap,g_(min), (ii) the difference in the slopes, Δ_(m), of the asymptotes forthe energy levels of the qubit or plurality of qubits undergoingadiabatic change (e.g., quantum system 850 of FIG. 8), and (iii) therate of change of the adiabatic evolution parameter, dγ/dt={dot over(γ)}. The first estimate of the Landau-Zener transition probability is:

${P_{LZ} = {\mathbb{e}}^{{- 2}{\pi\eta}}};{\eta = {\frac{1}{4\hslash}{\frac{g_{\min}}{{\Delta_{m}}\overset{.}{\gamma}}.}}}$The values for the parameters g_(min), and Δ_(m) will vary with thespecific instance of the algorithm being run on an adiabatic quantumcomputer.

Other embodiments of the present methods can be constructed and operatedwith a different estimate for the probability of a diabatic transitionat 404. For instance, in some embodiments the second estimate of theLandau-Zener transition probability is computed. This probability hasthe form:

${{P_{LZ}^{\prime} = {\mathbb{e}}^{{- 2}\pi\; k\;\vartheta}};{\vartheta = {\frac{1}{\hslash}\frac{g_{\min}^{2}}{E_{J}f_{P}}}}},$where k is a constant that is about 1, E_(J) is the Josephson energy ofthe qubit (or maximum Josephson energy of the Josephson energies of aplurality of qubits), and f_(P) is frequency of oscillation of anadditional flux that is added to the superconducting qubit. The valuesfor the parameters g_(min) and E_(J) will vary with the specificinstance of the algorithm being run on the adiabatic quantum computer.

In many embodiments of the present methods, quantum systems foradiabatic quantum computation are designed such that the minimum of theenergy gap, the difference in the asymptotic slopes, and the rate ofchange of the adiabatic evolution parameter ensure that the probabilityof diabatic transition at 404 is small, e.g. P_(LZ) is much smallerthan 1. In an embodiment of the present methods, P_(LZ) is 1×10⁻³ orless. The probability of transition from the ground state of the quantumsystem to the first excited state of the quantum system is exponentiallysensitive to the rate of change of the adiabatic evolution and providesa lower bound to that rate. The probability of transition from theground state of the quantum system to the first excited state of thequantum system also provides an upper limit on rate of change of theadiabatic evolution parameter. The duration of an adiabatic algorithm,or process, may be less than the time it takes for a Landau-Zenertransition to occur. If P_(LZ) is the probability per anticrossing, thenthe quantum system (e.g., quantum system 850 of FIG. 8, which can be anindividual qubit or a plurality of qubits) may be designed and operatedsuch that the following inequality is satisfied: P_(LZ)×n_(A)<<1, wheren_(A) is the number of anticrossings traversed in time T, orT<<(P_(LZ)×{dot over (γ)}×ρ_(A))⁻¹, where ρ_(A) is the density ofanticrossings along the ground state of the energy spectra. The densityof the anticrossings and crossings along the ground state can becalculated by an approximate evaluation method.

In some embodiments of the present methods, the amount of time requiredto perform the readout process may be engineered so that the probabilitythat quantum system 850 will transition from the ground state to thefirst excited state is small. In one embodiment, the probability lessthan one percent. For a readout process, the following should hold:P_(LZ)×m×r<<1, or τ<<f_(A)×(P_(LZ)×m)⁻¹, where m is the number ofqubits, and r is the average number of cycles used to readout thequbits, f_(A) is the frequency of the cycles used to readout the qubits,and τ is the time for the readout of one qubit in a plurality of mqubits.

In an embodiment of the present methods this requisite small probabilityfor transition P_(LZ) is dependent on the process performed. In the caseof a readout process that applies additional flux to a superconductingqubit and measures the state through a tank circuit, such as theembodiment described in detail below in conjunction with FIG. 8, thevalue of “small” is dependent on the number of cycles (r) of thewaveform of the additional flux used. For example, in an embodiment ofthe present methods that reads out one qubit in one cycle, a smallP_(LZ) value is 1×10⁻² or less. In an embodiment of the present methodsthat reads out n qubits in r cycles, a small P_(LZ) value is(r×n)⁻¹×10⁻² or less. The cumulative probability of transition over theadiabatic process and subsequent readout cycles may be small and thesystem designed and operated accordingly. In an embodiment of thepresent methods, a small cumulative probability of transition is about1×10⁻².

Speed-Up of Adiabatic Evolution

In some embodiments of the present methods, the time T it takes for thequantum system to evolve from H₀ to H_(P) may be minimized. As mentionedpreviously, Landau-Zener transitions are the main cause of excitationfrom the instantaneous ground state during adiabatic quantum evolution.Landau-Zener transitions occur in the vicinity of anticrossings in theenergy spectra of the state of the quantum system undergoing adiabaticevolution. If the state of the quantum system passes through theanticrossing too quickly during adiabatic evolution, there is a largeprobability of exciting the state of the quantum system, resulting in asuperposition of states rather than the ground state of the HamiltonianH_(P) at the end of the evolution. However, anticrossings involving theground state do not occur often in the energy spectra of the quantumsystem, and therefore it is not necessary for the entire adiabaticevolution to be limited to a rate commensurate with avoidingLandau-Zener transitions at anticrossings.

The adiabatic evolution can be expressed asH(t)=(1−γ(t))H ₀+γ(t)H _(P)where γ(t) is a time-dependent adiabatic evolution parameter thatchanges in value as the quantum system adiabatically evolves from theground state of a first configuration characterized by theinitialization Hamiltonian H _(O) to the ground state of a secondconfiguration characterized by the Hamiltonian H _(P) . At the beginningof the adiabatic evolution, when the quantum system is in the groundstate of the first configuration, γ(t) has a value of 0. At the end ofthe adiabatic evolution, when the quantum system is in the ground stateof the second configuration (the problem configuration), γ(t) has avalue of 1. In typical embodiments, at all other time points during theadiabatic evolution, γ(t) has a value somewhere between or including 0and 1. In the present methods, the rate of change of γ(t) over thecourse of the adiabatic evolution is reduced when the state of thequantum system described by H(t) is in the vicinity of an anticrossingand the rate of change of γ(t) is increased when the state of thequantum system is not in the vicinity of an anticrossing.

In some embodiments of the present methods, adiabatic evolution isslowed down at time points during the time course of the adiabaticevolution during which the state of the quantum system is in thevicinity of anticrossings. The edges of such time intervals, whichdemark when the state of the quantum system is in the vicinity of suchanticrossings, may be determined by a statistical analysis of variousproblem Hamiltonians H_(P). For each problem Hamiltonian H_(P), a rangeof values in the adiabatic evolution time course where an anticrossingis likely to occur is determined. By analyzing a variety of problemHamiltonians with different numbers of qubits and with varying values oflocal qubit biases and coupling strengths, the time intervals duringwhich the state of the quantum system is, on average, in the vicinity ofan anticrossing may be determined. Within such averaged time intervalsthere is a large probability of an anticrossing being present,independent of the specific problem Hamiltonian. Each such averaged timeinterval constitutes the vicinity of an anticrossing where there is ahigh probability that an anticrossing occurs. Thus, adiabatic evolutioncan proceed relatively quickly when not in such a time interval and onlyslow down in the vicinity of an anticrossing.

In some embodiments, slowing down the adiabatic evolution comprisesslowing down (decreasing) the rate that the parameter γ(t) changes as itproceeds from γ(t)=0 to γ(t)=1. In some embodiments, the adiabaticevolution slows down the transition from γ(t)=0 to γ(t)=1 around thevalue γ(t)=0.5. In one embodiment, the rate of change of the functionγ(t) is decreased when the value of the parameter γ(t) is within tenpercent or less of the value that the parameter γ(t) has at a givenanticrossing.

Slowing down the rate of change in the parameter γ(t) may compriseslowing down the rate at which the coupling strengths between qubits arechanged, the rate at which local biases on qubits are changed, and/orthe rate at which the tunneling amplitude is changed. In someembodiments, the rate of change of adiabatic evolution parameter γ(t)(∂γ(t)/∂t) may be decreased (slowed down) by an approximate factor oftwo to ten in the vicinity of an anticrossing compared to when the stateof the quantum system is not in the vicinity of an anticrossing.

Another method of increasing the speed of the adiabatic evolution is tomultiply the superposition of Hamiltonians by a global function. Thishas the effect of increasing the gap size of the anticrossing, therebydecreasing the probability of the quantum system undergoing aLandau-Zener transition. The probability of a Landau-Zener transition isexponentially proportional to the square of the gap size, so theprobability of staying in the ground state can increase significantlywith a small increase in gap size. Therefore, the adiabatic evolutiondoes not have to proceed as slowly through the anticrossing. An exampleof this method is shown using the Hamiltonian:H(t)=[(1−γ(t))H ₀+γ(t)H _(P)]·[1+Γ(γ(t)−γ(t)_(m))]where γ(t) is the adiabatic evolution parameter, γ(t)_(m) is the valueof γ(t) at an anticrossing, and Γ(γ) is a global function dependent onthe evolution parameter. The function Γ(γ) is at its maximum whenγ(t)=γ(t)_(m) and drops off to zero when γ(t) is 0 or 1. An example ofsuch a function is a Gaussian-like function centered on γ(t)_(m).Another example of a global function is shown below:

${1 + {\Gamma(\gamma)}} = {\frac{\theta( {{\gamma(t)}_{m} - {\gamma(t)}} )}{1 - {\gamma(t)}} + \frac{\theta( {{\gamma(t)} - {\gamma(t)}_{m}} )}{\gamma(t)}}$where θ(x) is a step function which equals 0 for x<0 and equals 1 forx>0. This global function does not shift the position of theanticrossing whereas other forms of the global function can, making iteasier to specify the vicinity of the anticrossing.

Physically, multiplying the Hamiltonian by the factor (1+Γ(γ)) involveschanging one or more bias parameters in the quantum system. Such biasparameters include the energy corresponding to the individual flux orcharge bias on each qubit, the tunneling term in each qubit, and thecoupling strength between qubits. Multiplying the Hamiltonian by thefactor (1+Γ(γ)) simply scales each of these parameters by the sameamount. Therefore, to physically implement the factor (1+Γ(γ)) it isonly necessary to increase the individual bias, tunneling term, andcoupling strength by the same factor. Methods of tuning these parametersare known in the art and are described in other sections of thespecification.

FIG. 6A shows the coefficients of H₀ and H_(P), and (1−γ(t)) and γ(t)respectively during an adiabatic evolution where γ(t) is a linearfunction. The initial Hamiltonian H₀ linearly decreases to zero withtime while the final Hamiltonian H_(P) linearly increases to its maximumvalue with time. As an example, the anticrossing is arbitrarily placedat γ(t)=0.5. FIG. 6B shows the same situation as FIG. 6A except thatγ(t) is nonlinear and the coefficients are multiplied by the factor(1Γ(γ)). Note that near γ(t)=0.5, both curves increase in amplitude,which is a result of increasing the amplitude of both H₀ and H_(P) inthe total Hamiltonian. This effect is caused by the factor (1+Γ(γ)), andas a consequence the gap spacing of the anticrossing at γ(t)=0.5 isincreased, thereby reducing the probability of excitations out of theinstantaneous ground state. The factor by which (1+Γ(γ)) can increasethe gap size is limited due to physical constraints of the system.

In some embodiments of the present methods, the function Γ(γ) is aGaussian-like function. In other embodiments, the function Γ(γ) is afunction that increases the amplitude of both H₀ and H_(P) as theevolution approaches an anticrossing and decreases the amplitude of bothH₀ and H_(P) after the evolution passes an anticrossing. In someembodiments, the ground state of H_(P) may be non-degenerate. The factor(1+Γ(γ)) may be implemented by changing the individual bias of thequbits, the tunneling term of the qubits, and/or the coupling strengthbetween qubits by the same factor.

In some embodiments of the present methods, both methods of speeding upthe adiabatic evolution described above may be used in conjunction. Thatis, the gap size of an anticrossing is increased and the speed ofadiabatic evolution is reduced in the vicinity of the anticrossing.

Exemplary Embodiments

The following describes embodiments of quantum systems capable ofconducting adiabatic quantum computing.

Finding the Ground State of a Frustrated Ring Adiabatically Using aPersistent Current Qubit Quantum System

FIG. 5A illustrates a first example of a quantum system 500 inaccordance with an embodiment of the present methods. Three coupled fluxqubits are dimensioned and configured in accordance with the presentmethods such that system 500 is capable of finding the ground state of afrustrated quantum system using adiabatic computing methods.

General Description of the Persistent Current Qubit Quantum System Usedin Exemplary Embodiments

Referring to FIG. 5A, each qubit 101 in quantum system 500 includes asuperconducting loop with three small-capacitance Josephson junctions inseries that enclose an applied magnetic flux fφ_(o) (φ_(o) is thesuperconducting flux quantum h/2e, where h is Planck's constant) and fis a number that can range from 0 (no applied flux) to 0.5 or greater.Each Josephson junction is denoted by an “x” within the correspondingsuperconducting loop. In each qubit 101, two of the Josephson junctionshave equal Josephson energy E_(J), whereas the coupling in the thirdjunction is αE_(J), with 0.5<α<1. Each qubit 101 has two stableclassical states with persistent circulating currents of opposite sign.For f=0.5, the energies of the two states are the same. The barrier forquantum tunneling between the states depends strongly on the value of a.Qubits 101 having the design illustrated in FIG. 5A has been proposed byMooij et al., 1999, Science 285, 1036. The design and manufacture ofsuch qubits is further discussed in Section 2.2.1, above.

The two stable states of a qubit 101 will have equal energy, meaningthat they will be degenerate, and will therefore support quantumtunneling between the two equal energy states (basis states) when theamount of flux trapped in the qubit is 0.5φ_(o). The amount of fluxrequired to trap 0.50φ_(o) in a qubit 101 is directly proportional tothe area of the qubit, defined here as the area enclosed by thesuperconducting loop of the qubit. If the amount of flux needed toachieve a trapped flux of 0.50φ_(o) in a first qubit 101 having area A₁is B₁, then the amount of flux that is needed to trap 0.5φ_(o) of fluxin a second qubit having area A₂ is (A₂/A₁)B₁. Advantageously, in system500, each qubit 101 has the same total surface area so that an externalmechanism (e.g., a tank circuit) can cause each respective qubit 101 insystem 500 to trap 0.50φ_(o) of flux at approximately or exactly thesame time.

In some embodiments, the three persistent current qubits, 101-1, 101-2,and 101-3 in structure 500 are inductively coupled to a tank circuit(not fully shown in FIG. 5A). This tank circuit is comprised of bothinductive and capacitive circuit elements. The tank circuit is used tobias qubits 101 such that they each trap 0.5φ_(o) of flux. In someembodiments of the present methods, the tank circuit has a high qualityfactor (e.g., Q>1000) and a low resonance frequency (e.g., a frequencyless between 6 to 30 megahertz). The role of a tank circuit as a qubitcontrol system is detailed in United States Patent Publication2003/0224944 A1, entitled “Characterization and measurement ofsuperconducting structures,” which is hereby incorporated by referencein its entirety, as well as II'ichev et al., 2004, “Radio-FrequencyMethod for Investigation of Quantum Properties of SuperconductingStructures,” arXiv.org: cond-mat/0402559; and II'ichev et al., 2003,“Continuous Monitoring of Rabi Oscillations in a Josephson Flux Qubit,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 097906. An inductive element of a tank circuit isshown in FIG. 5A as element 502. In some embodiments, inductive element502 is a pancake coil of superconducting material, such as niobium, witha nominal spacing of 1 micrometer between each turn of the coil. Theinductive and capacitive elements of the tank circuit can be arranged inparallel or in series. For a parallel circuit, a useful set of valuesfor a small number of qubits is an inductance of about 50 nanohenries toabout 250 nanohenries, a capacitance of about 50 picofarads to about2000 picofarads, and a resonance frequency of about 10 megahertz toabout 20 megahertz. In some embodiments, the resonance frequency f_(T)is determined by the formula f_(T)=ω_(T)/2π=1/√{square root over(L_(T)C_(T))} where L_(T) is the inductance and C_(T) is the capacitanceof the tank circuit.

Selection of Persistent Current Qubit Device Parameters

In some embodiments of the present methods, qubit parameters are chosento satisfy the requirements of the problem to be solved by adiabaticquantum computation and the restrictions of the qubits. For a persistentcurrent qubit, the tunneling term is always non-zero and oftennon-variable. This presents a problem because in some embodiments aproblem Hamiltonian H_(P) is chosen for 403 of FIG. 4 that does notpermit quantum tunneling to occur. Yet, in the case of persistentcurrent qubits, a state that does not permit quantum tunneling cannot befound because in such qubits the tunneling term is always non-zero. Itis not necessary to have the tunneling term absent from the problemHamiltonian H_(P) or the initial Hamiltonian H₀. In some embodiments ofthe present methods permit a non-zero tunneling term in H_(P) and or/orH₀ for any combination of the following reasons: (i) the tunneling termleads to anticrossing useful for read out processes and (ii) therequirement of non-tunneling term is deemed to be too strict in suchembodiments. As to the latter point, it is sufficient to have a couplingterm that is much stronger than the tunneling term in some embodimentsof the present invention.

In one particular embodiment of a qubit 101 in quantum system 500 (FIG.5A), the critical current density of the Josephson junctions is about1000 amperes per centimeter squared. The largest and strongest junctionof each qubit 101 in system 500 has an area of about 450 nanometers byabout 200 nanometers. The capacitance of the largest junction is about4.5 femtofarads and the ratio between the Josephson energy and thecharging energy is about 100. The charging energy in such embodiments ise²/2C. The ratio between the weakest and strongest Josephson junction is0.707:1. The tunneling energies of qubits 101 in this embodiment areeach about 0.064 Kelvin. The persistent current is 570 nanoamperes. Forthis value of the persistent current and for inter-qubit mutualinductances taken from the design of FIG. 5A, the coupling energiesbetween the qubits are J_(1,2)=0.246 Kelvin, J_(2,3)=0.122 Kelvin, andJ_(1,3)=0.059 Kelvin. All these parameters are within reach of currentfabrication technology. The specific values for this exemplaryembodiment are provided by way of example only and do not impose anylimitation on other embodiments of a system 500.

Various embodiments of the present invention provide different valuesfor the persistent current that circulates in persistent current qubits101. These persistent currents range from about 100 nanoamperes to about2 milliamperes. The persistent current values change the slope of theasymptotes at anticrossing 915 (FIG. 9A). Specifically, the qubit biasis equal to π|_(P)(2Φ_(E)/Φ₀−1), where I_(P) is the persistent currentvalue and the slope of the asymptote (e.g., asymptote 914 and/or 916) isproportional to the qubit bias, for large bias, when such bias is about10 times the tunneling energy. In some embodiments of the presentmethods, qubits 101 have a critical current density of about 100 A/cm²to about 2000 A/cm². In some embodiments of the present methods, qubits101 have a critical current that is less than about 600 nanoamperes. Insome embodiments of the present methods, the term “about” in relation tocritical current means a variance of up to ±50% of the stated value.

Algorithm Used to Solve the Computational Problem

Act 401 (Preparation).

An overview of an apparatus 500 used to solve a computational problem inaccordance of the present methods has. In this section, the generaladiabatic quantum computing process set forth in FIG. 4 is described.The problem to be solved is finding or confirming the ground state orfinal state of a three node frustrated ring. System 500 is used to solvethis problem. Entanglement of one or more qubits 101 is achieved by theinductive coupling of flux trapped in each qubit 101. The strength ofthis type of coupling between two qubits is, in part, a function of thecommon surface area between the two qubits. Increased common surfacearea between abutting qubits leads to increased inductive couplingbetween the two abutting qubits.

In accordance with the present methods, the problem of determining theground state of the three node frustrated ring is encoded into system500 by customizing the coupling constants between neighboring qubits 101using two variables: (i) the distance between the qubits and (ii) theamount of surface area common to such qubits. The lengths and widths ofqubits 101, as well as the spatial separation between such qubits, areadjusted to customize inter-qubit inductive coupling strengths in such away that these coupling strengths correspond to a computational problemto be solved (e.g., the ground state or final state of a three memberfrustrated ring). In some embodiments, qubit 101 length and widthchoices are subject to the constraint that each qubit 101 have the sameor approximately the same total surface area so that the qubits can beadjusted to a state where they each trap half a flux quantum at the sametime.

As shown in FIG. 5A, the configuration of qubits 101 represents a ringwith inherent frustration. The frustrated ring is denoted by the dashedtriangle in FIG. 5A through qubits 101. Each two qubits of the set{101-1, 101-2, 101-3} has a coupling that favors anti-ferromagneticalignment, i.e. adjacent qubits exist in differing basis states. Becauseof the presence of the odd third qubit and the asymmetry that resultsfrom the odd third qubit, system 500 does not permit such an alignmentof coupling. This causes system 500, in this embodiment a ring-likeconfiguration of an odd number of qubits, to be frustrated. Referring toFIG. 5A, in an embodiment of the methods, the area of each qubit 101 isapproximately equal. In one embodiment, persistent current qubits, suchas qubits 101, with an area of about 80 micrometers squared (e.g. heightof about 9 micrometers and width of about 9 micrometers, height of 4micrometers and width of 40 micrometers, etc.) are arranged with twocongruent qubits paired lengthwise (e.g., 101-1 and 101-2) and a thirdnon-congruent qubit (e.g., 101-3) laid transverse and abutting the endof the pair, as shown in FIG. 5A.

All three qubits 101-1, 101-2 and 101-3, have the same area subject tomanufacturing tolerances. In some embodiments of the present methods,such tolerance allows for up to a ±25% deviation from the mean qubitsurface area. Qubits 101-1, 101-2 and 101-3 are coupled to each otherasymmetrically. In other words, the total surface area common to qubit101-3 and 101-1 (or 101-2) is less than the total surface area common toqubit 101-1 and 101-2.

Embodiments of the present methods, such as those that include a systemlike 500, have the Hamiltonian:

$H = {{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\;\lbrack {{ɛ_{i}\sigma_{i}^{Z}} + {\Delta_{i}\sigma_{i}^{X}}} \rbrack} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{j > i}^{N}{J_{ij}{\sigma_{i}^{Z} \otimes \sigma_{j}^{Z}}}}}}$where N is the number of qubits. The quantity Δ_(i) is the tunnelingrate, or energy, of the i^(th) qubit expressed in units of frequency, orenergy. These unit scales differ by a factor of h or Plank's constant.The quantity ε_(i) is the amount of bias applied to the qubit, orequivalently, the amount of flux in the loops of the qubits. Thequantity J_(ij) is the strength of the coupling between a i^(th) and aj^(th) qubit. The coupling energy is a function of the mutual inductancebetween qubits J_(ij)=M_(ij) I_(i)I_(j). In order to encode the threenode frustrated ring problem, the three coupling energies are arrangedsuch that J₁₂>>J₁₃≈J₂₃.

In some embodiments of the present methods, the coupling strengthbetween any two abutting qubits is a product of the mutual inductanceand the currents in the coupled qubits. The mutual inductance is afunction of common surface area and distance. The greater the commonsurface area had between two adjacent qubits the stronger the mutualinductance. The greater the distance had between two adjacent qubits theless the mutual inductance. The current in each qubit is a function ofthe Josephson energy of the qubit, E_(J). E_(J) depends on the type ofJosephson junctions interrupting the superconducting loop within thequbit. Inductance calculations can be performed using programs such asFASTHENRY, a numeric three-dimensional inductance calculation program,is freely distributed by the Research Laboratory of Electronics of theMassachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass. See, Kamon, etal., 1994, “FASTHENRY: A Multipole-Accelerated 3-D Inductance ExtractionProgram,” IEEE Trans. on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 42, pp.1750-1758.

Act 403 (Initialization of System 500 to H_(o)).

Qubits 101 of system 500 of FIG. 5A interact with their environmentthrough a magnetic field that is applied perpendicular to the plane ofFIG. 5A by causing a current to flow through coil 502 of the tankcircuit. At 403, system 500 is set to an initial state characterized bythe Hamiltonian H_(o) by applying such an external magnetic field. Thisexternally applied magnetic field creates an interaction defined by theHamiltonian:

$H_{0} = {Q{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\sigma_{i}^{Z}}}$where Q represents the strength of an external magnetic field. In someembodiments, the external magnetic field has a strength such that ε>>Δor ε>>J. That is, the magnetic field is on an energy scale that is largerelative to other terms in the Hamiltonian. As an example, for a qubithaving the dimensions of 50 to 100 micrometers squared, the magneticfield is between about 10⁻⁸ teslas and about 10⁻⁶ teslas. The energy ofa magnetic field B in a persistent current qubit of area S, in terms ofMKS units is ½μ_(o)S·B² where μ₀ is 4π×10⁻⁷ Wb/(A·m) (webers per amperemeter). The magnetic field also controls the bias ε applied to eachqubit. System 500 is in the ground state |000

of H₀ when the flux that is trapped where the flux produced by eachqubit 101 is aligned with the external magnetic field.

Once system 500 is in the ground state |000

of the starting state H₀, it can be used to solve the computationalproblem hard-coded into the system through the engineered inter-qubitcoupling constants. To accomplish this, the applied magnetic field isremoved at a rate that is sufficiently slow to cause the system tochange adiabatically. At any given instant during the removal of theexternally applied initialization magnetic field, the state of system500 is described by the Hamiltonian:

$H = {{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}\lbrack {{ɛ_{i}\sigma_{i}^{Z}} + {\Delta_{i}\sigma_{i}^{X}}} \rbrack} + {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{j > i}^{N}{J_{ij}{\sigma_{i}^{Z} \otimes {\sigma_{j}^{Z}.}}}}}}$where Δ is a tunneling term that is a function of the bias ε applied bycoil 502. As described above, the bias ε may be applied by coil 502 besuch that a half flux quantum (0.5Φ₀) be trapped in each qubit 101 sothat the two stable states of each qubit have the same energy (aredegenerate) to achieve optimal quantum tunneling. Furthermore, eachqubit may have the same total surface area so that quantum tunneling ineach qubit starts and stops at the same time. Alternatively, qubits 101are biased by coil 502 such that the flux trapped in each qubit is anodd multiple of 0.5Φ₀ (e.g., N·0.5Φ₀, where N is 1, 2, 3 . . . ) sincethe bistable states of the qubits 101 will have equal energy anddegenerate. However, such higher amounts of trapped flux can haveundesirable side effects on the properties of the superconductingcurrent in the qubits. For instance, large amounts of trapped flux inqubits 101 may quench the superconducting current altogether that flowsthrough the superconducting loop of each loop. In some embodiments, thequbits are biased by coil 502 such that the amount of flux trapped ineach qubit is ζ·N·0.5Φ₀ where ζ is between about 0.7 and about 1.3, andwhere N is a positive integer. However, qubits 101 tunnel best when thebias in each corresponds to half-flux quantum of flux.

Act 405 (Reaching the Problem State H_(P)).

As the external perpendicularly applied field is adiabatically turnedoff, a problem Hamiltonian H_(P) is arrived at:

$H_{P} = {\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{N}{\sum\limits_{j > i}^{N}{J_{ij}{\sigma_{i}^{Z} \otimes {\sigma_{j}^{Z}.}}}}}$Note that, unlike the instantaneous Hamiltonian, the problem Hamiltoniandoes not include the tunneling term Δ. Thus, when system 500 reaches thefinal problem state and the quantum states of each respective qubit 101can no longer tunnel. Typically, the final state is one in which noexternal magnetic field is applied to qubits 101 and, consequently,qubits no longer trap flux.

Act 407 (Measurement).

At 407, the quantum system is measured. In the problem addressed in thepresent system, there eight possible solutions {000, 001, 010, 100, 011,110, 101, and 111}. Measurement involves determining which of the eightsolutions was adopted by system 500. An advantage of the present methodsis that this solution will represent the actual solution of the quantumsystem.

In an embodiment of the present methods, the result of the adiabaticquantum computation is determined using individual qubit magnetometers.Referring to FIG. 5C, a device 517 for detecting the state of apersistent current qubit is placed proximate to each qubit 101. Thestate of each qubit 101 can then be read out to determine the groundstate of H_(P). In an embodiment of the present methods, the device 517for detecting the state of the qubit is a DC-SQUID magnetometer, amagnetic force microscope, or a tank circuit dedicated to a single qubit101. The read out of each qubit 101 creates an image of the ground stateof H_(P). In embodiments of the present methods the device for readingout the state of the qubit encloses the qubit. For example a DC-SQUIDmagnetometer like 517-7, 517-8, and 517-9 in FIG. 5C, may enclose apersistent current qubit, e.g. 101-7, 101-8, and 101-9, to increase thereadout fidelity of the magnetometer.

In an embodiment of the present methods, the result of the adiabaticquantum computation is determined using individual qubit magnetometerslaid adjacent to respective qubits in the quantum system. Referring toFIG. 5D, devices 527-1, 527-2, and 527-3 are for detecting the state ofa persistent current qubit and are respectively placed besidecorresponding qubits 501-1, 501-2, and 501-3. The state of each qubit501 can then be read out to determine the ground state of H_(P). In anembodiment of the present methods, the device for detecting the state ofa qubit 501 is a DC-SQUID magnetometer, dedicated to one qubit.

In an embodiment of the present methods, the qubits 501 used in theadiabatic quantum computation are coupled by Josephson junctions.Referring to FIG. 5D, qubits 501-1, 501-2, and 501-3 are coupled to eachother by Josephson junctions 533. In particular, Josephson junction533-1 couples qubit 501-1 to qubit 501-2, Josephson junction 533-2couples qubit 501-2 to qubit 501-3, and Josephson junction 533-3 couplesqubit 501-3 to qubit 501-1. The sign of the coupling is positive foranti-ferromagnetic coupling, the same as inductive coupling. The energy(strength) of the coupling between persistent current qubits 501 thatare coupled by Josephson junctions can be about 1 Kelvin. In contrast,the energy of the coupling between persistent current qubits 501 thatare inductively coupled is about 10 milliKelvin. In an embodiment of thepresent methods, the term “about” in relation to coupling energies, suchas Josephson junction mediated and inducted coupling between persistentcurrent qubits, is defined as a maximum variance of up to ±500% of theenergy stated. The coupling energy between two qubits is proportional2I²/E where I is the current circulating the qubits, and E is theJosephson energy of the coupling Josephson junction. See, Grajcar etal., 2005, arXiv.org: cond-mat/0501085.

In an embodiment of the present methods, qubits 501 used in theadiabatic quantum computation have tunable tunneling energies. Referringto FIG. 5D, in such an embodiments, qubits 501-1, 501-2, and 501-3include split or compound Josephson junctions 528. Other qubits,described herein can make use of a split junction. Compound Josephsonjunction 528-1 is included in qubit 501-1 in the embodiments illustratedin FIG. 5D. Further, the compound Josephson junction 528-2 is includedin qubit 501-2, the compound Josephson junction 528-3 is included inqubit 501-3. Each compound junction 528 illustrated in FIG. 5D includestwo Josephson junctions and a superconducting loop in a DC-SQUIDgeometry. The energy of the Josephson junction E_(J), of the qubit 501,which is correlated with the tunneling energy of the qubit, iscontrolled by an external magnetic field supplied by the loop in thecorresponding compound Josephson junction 528. The Josephson energy ofcompound 528 can be tuned from about twice the Josephson energy of theconstituent Josephson junctions to about zero. In mathematical terms,

$E_{J} = {2\; E_{J}^{0}{{\cos( \frac{{\pi\Phi}_{X}}{\Phi_{0}} )}}}$where Φ_(X) is the external flux applied to the compound Josephsonjunction, and E_(J) ⁰ is the Josephson energy of one of the Josephsonjunctions in the compound junction. When the magnetic flux through splitjunction 528 is one half a flux quantum the tunneling energy for thecorresponding qubit 501 is zero. The magnetic flux in the compoundJosephson junctions 528 may be applied by a global magnetic field.

In an embodiment of the present methods the tunneling of qubits 501 issuppressed by applying a flux of one half a flux quantum to the compoundJosephson junction 528 of one or more qubits 501. In an embodiment ofthe present methods the split junction loop is orientated perpendicularto the plane of the corresponding (adjacent) qubit 501 such that fluxapplied to it is transverse in the field of the qubits.

Referring to FIG. 5, in an embodiment of the present methods, the qubitsused in the adiabatic quantum computation have both ferromagnetic andantiferromagnetic couplings. The plurality of qubits 555 in FIG. 5E arecoupled both by ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic couplings.Specifically, the coupling between qubits 511-1 and 511-3, as well asbetween qubits 511-2 and 511-4, are ferromagnetic while all othercouplings are antiferromagnetic (e.g., between qubits 511-1 and 511-2).The ferromagnetic coupling is induced by crossovers 548-1 and 548-2.

Referring to FIG. 5A, in some embodiments of the present methods, thestate of each qubit 101 of system 500 is not individually read out.Rather, such embodiments make use of the profile of the energy leveldiagram of system 500, as a whole, over a range of probing biasingcurrents. In such embodiments, when system 500 reaches H_(P) the systemis probed with a range of biasing currents using, for example, a tankcircuit that includes coil 502. The overall energy level of system 500over the range of biasing currents applied during the measurement 407define an energy level profile for the system 500 that is characteristicof the state of system 500. Furthermore, as discussed in more detailbelow, system 500 is designed in some embodiments such that each of thepossible eight states that the system could adopt has a uniquecalculated energy profile (e.g., unique number of inflection points,unique curvature). In such embodiments, measurement of H_(P) can beaccomplished by computing the energy profile of system 500 with respectto a range of biasing currents. In such embodiments, the state of system500 (e.g., 001, 010, 100, etc.) is determined by correlating thecalculated characteristics (e.g., slope, number of inflection point,etc.) of the measured energy profile to the characteristics of theenergy profile calculated for each of the possible solutions (e.g., thecharacteristics of a calculated energy profile for 001, thecharacteristics of a calculated energy profile for 010, etc.). Whendesigned in accordance with the present methods, there will only be onecalculated energy profile that matches the measured energy profile, andthis will be the solution to the problem of finding the ground state orfinal state of a frustrated ring.

In other embodiments of the present methods, the state of each qubit 101of system 500 is not individually read out. Rather, such embodimentsmake use of the profile of the energy level diagram of system 500 as awhole over a range of probing biasing currents. In such embodiments,when system 500 reaches H_(P) the system is probed with a range ofbiasing currents using, for example, a tank circuit that includes coil502 (FIG. 5A). The overall energy level of system 500 over the range ofbiasing currents applied during the measurement 407 define an energylevel profile for the system 500 that is characteristic of the statethat the system is in. Furthermore, as discussed in more detail below,system 500 can be designed such that each of the possible eight statesthat the system could have is characterized by a unique calculatedenergy profile (e.g., unique number of inflection points, uniquecurvature). In such embodiments, measurement of H_(P) could involvecomputing the energy profile of system 500 with respect to a range ofbiasing currents and then determining the state of system 500 (e.g.,001, 010, 100, etc.) by correlating the calculated characteristics(e.g., slope, number of inflection point, etc.) of the measured energyprofile to the characteristics of the energy profile calculated for eachof the possible solutions (e.g., the characteristics of a calculatedenergy profile for 001, the characteristics of a calculated energyprofile for 010, and so forth). When designed in accordance with thisembodiment of the present methods, there will only be one calculatedenergy profile that matches the measured energy profile and this will bethe solution to the problem of finding the ground state of the modeledfrustrated ring.

For many embodiments of the present methods, the energy levels of thesystem for adiabatic quantum computing H_(P) across a range of probingbiasing values are differentiable from each other. FIG. 7B illustratesan example of this. Consider a system 500 in which two of the threeinter-qubit coupling constants are equal to δ (J₁₃=J₂₃=δ) and the thirdis equal to three times that amount J₁₂=3·δ. Further, the tunnelingrates of the qubits are about equal and, in fact are about equal to thesmall coupling value δ (e.g., Δ₁=1.1·δ; Δ₂=δ; Δ₃=0.9·δ) where ·δ is innormalized units. In an embodiment of the present methods, δ can be avalue in the range of about 100 megahertz to about 20 gigahertz. Whensystem 500 is configured with these tunneling and coupling values thenthe curvature of the two lowest energy levels will be different fromeach other and therefore can be distinguished by the impedancetechniques described previously. In these impedance techniques, thefinal bias current applied by the tank circuit in system 500 is notfixed. Rather, it is adjusted to produce the energy levels of FIG. 7B.Indeed, FIG. 7B is plotted as a function of energy E versus bias ε, foran example where the areas encompassed by each of the qubits 101 areequal (e.g., system 500 of FIG. 5A). The bias ε is in units of energyand the scale of the horizontal axis of FIG. 7B has is in units equal toΔ. The bias is the same for each qubit, because the area is same foreach qubit. By contrast, FIG. 7A shows the energy levels for variousinstantaneous times during the adiabatic change from a state H₀ to astate H_(P).

Considering FIG. 7B, embodiments of the present methods use existingtechniques for differentiating energy levels by shape, where the shapeor curvature of a first energy level as a function of bias ε can bedifferentiated from other energy levels. See, for example, United StatesPatent Publication 2003/0224944 A1, entitled “Characterization andmeasurement of superconducting structures,” which is hereby incorporatedby reference in its entirety. The impedance readout technique can beused to readout the system 500 to determine the states of the qubits inthe frustrated arrangement. The unique curvature for each possibleenergy level (solution) does not significantly change if J₁₃ is aboutequal to J₂₃.

In an embodiment of the present methods, the system is read out bydifferentiating various energy levels (solutions) to identify the groundstate. In an example of the persistent current qubit, the dephasing rateis currently recorded as being 2.5 microseconds or less. Once the systemis in a state of H_(P) the state, e.g. 700 or 750 of FIGS. 7A and 7B canbe determined by locally probing the energy level structure by lowfrequency applications of a biasing magnetic field.

The states of energy level diagram like that of FIG. 7B can bedifferentiated through the curvatures, and number of inflection pointsof the respective energy levels. Two energy levels may have a differentsign on the curvature that allows them to be distinguished. Two energylevels may have the same signs but have different magnitudes ofcurvature. Two energy levels may have a different number of inflectionpoints. All of these generate different response voltages in the tankcircuit. For instance, an energy level with two inflection points willhave a voltage response for each inflection. The sign of the voltageresponse is correlated with the sign of the curvature.

Knowledge of the initial energy level and the corresponding voltageresponse can allow the ground state to be determined provided that asampling of some of the lowest energy levels voltage response has beenmade. Accordingly, in an embodiment of the present methods, the systemis not initialized in the ground state of the initial Hamiltonian.Rather the system is initialized in an excited state of the system suchas 750. Then the interpolation between initial and final Hamiltoniansoccurs at a rate that is adiabatic but is faster than the relaxationrate out of state 750. In one example of a persistent current qubit, therelaxation rate is about 1 to about 10 microseconds. The ground statewill have a greater curvature and the lowest number inflection points ofthe energy levels of the system.

Observation and Readout by Traversing Crossings and Anticrossings

This section describes techniques for reading out the state of a quantumsystem 850. In some embodiments, this is accomplished by reading out thestate of each qubit within quantum system 850 on an individual basis.Individualized readout of qubits in a quantum system 850 can beaccomplished, for example, by making use of individual bias wires orindividual excitation devices 820 for each qubit within quantum system850 as described in this section and as illustrated in FIG. 5B. In someembodiments, the entire process described in FIG. 4 is repeated, andduring each repetition a different qubit in the quantum system 850 ismeasured. In some embodiments it is not necessary to repeat the processdescribed in FIG. 4 for each qubit in quantum system 850.

FIG. 9 illustrates sections of energy level diagrams with energy levelcrossing and anticrossing. FIGS. 9A and 9B are useful for describing howthe readout of superconducting qubits in quantum system 850 works, andhow one performs such a readout. FIGS. 9A and 9B show energy levels fora qubit as a function of external flux Φ applied on the qubit. In someembodiments, aspects of system 800 from FIG. 8 can be represented byFIGS. 9A and 9B. For example, superconducting qubit 850 of FIG. 8 canhave an energy level crossing or anticrossing depicted in FIG. 9 thatcan be probed by tank circuit 810 in some embodiments.

FIG. 9A illustrates an energy level diagram with an anticrossing. Ananticrossing arises between energy levels of a qubit when there is atunneling term or, more generally, a transition term between the levels.Energy levels 909 (ground state) and 919 (excited state) have ahyperbolic shape as a function of applied magnetic flux, with ananticrossing within box 915, and approach asymptotes 914 and 916. Thevalue of Δ_(m) for the energy level diagram is the difference in theslopes of the pair of asymptotes 914 and 916 near the anticrossing.Lines 914 and 915 of FIG. 9A are an example of a set of asymptotes nearan anticrossing. The superconducting qubit, part of a quantum system850, and described by the energy diagram of FIG. 9A, has computationalbasis states |0

and |1

. In an embodiment of the present methods where the superconductingqubit is a three-Josephson junction qubit, the |0

and |1

computational basis states correspond to right and left circulatingsupercurrents (102-0 and 102-1 of FIG. 1A). The |0

and |1

computational basis states are illustrated in FIG. 9A. In the groundstate 909 of the qubit represented by FIG. 9A, the |0

basis state corresponds to region 910 to the left of degeneracy point913 and the |1

basis state corresponds to region 911 on the right of the degeneracypoint. In the excited state 919 of the qubit represented by FIG. 9A, the|0

basis state is on the right of degeneracy point 923 in region 920 whilethe |1

basis state corresponds to region 921 on the left of degeneracy point923.

In accordance with an embodiment of the present methods, a method forreading out the state of a superconducting qubit within quantum system850 involves using tank circuit 810 to apply a range of fluxes to thesuperconducting qubit over a period of time and detecting a change inthe properties of the tank circuit coupled to the superconductingcircuit during the sweep. In the case where the qubit is asuperconducting flux qubit, a superconducting loop with low inductance Linterrupted by three Josephson junctions, the flux applied during thesweep can range from about 0.3Φ₀ to 0.7·Φ₀. In some embodiments of thepresent methods, the flux sweep is performed adiabatically to ensurethat the qubit remains in its ground state during the transition. Underthis adiabatic sweep, tank circuit 810 (FIG. 8) detects when the quantumstate of the qubit crosses the anticrossing and hence determines thequantum state of the qubit at the end of 405 of FIG. 4. For example,referring to FIG. 9A, if the qubit is in ground state |0

at the end of 405 on the left of the energy level anticrossing 915 andthe flux is adiabatically increased during 407, then the tank circuitwill detect anticrossing 915. On the other hand, if the qubit is inground state |1

at the end of 405 on the right of anticrossing 915, then when the fluxis increased the qubit will not cross anticrossing 915 and therefore nosuch anticrossing will be detected. In this way, provided that the qubitis maintained in the ground state, the applied sweep of fluxes can beused to determine whether the qubit was in the |0

or the |1

basis state prior to readout.

FIG. 9B illustrates an energy level diagram for a qubit in a quantumsystem 850 having an energy level crossing. An energy level crossingarises between energy levels of the qubit when there is no tunnelingterm, a minimal tunneling term, or, more generally, no transition termbetween energy levels of the qubit being read out. This is in contrastto FIG. 9A, where there is an anticrossing between energy levels of aqubit due to a tunneling term or, more generally, a transition termbetween such energy levels. Energy levels 950 and 951 of FIG. 9B lie inpart where asymptotes 914 and 916 of FIG. 9A cross. The computationalbasis states of the qubit represented by the energy level diagram FIG.9B are labeled. The |0

state corresponds to the entire energy level 950 between crossing 960and terminus 952. The |1

state corresponds to the entire energy level 951 between crossing 960and terminus 953.

At termini 952 and 953, the states corresponding to energy levelsdisappear and the state of the qubit falls to the first available energylevel. As illustrated in FIG. 9B, in the case of the |0

state, beginning at crossing 960, as the flux Φ in the qubit isdecreased and the energy of the |0

state rises, the qubit remains in the |0

state until terminus 952 is reached at which point the |0

state vanishes. In contrast, if the qubit was in the |1

state, then beginning at crossing 960, as the flux Φ in the qubit isdecreased, the energy of the |1

state gradually decreases. Thus, the behavior of a qubit that has nocoupling term exhibits hysteretic behavior meaning that the state of thequbit at crossing 960 depends on what the state the qubit was in priorto the flux being brought to the value correlated with crossing 960.

The readout 407 (FIG. 4), in accordance with some embodiments of thepresent methods of a superconducting qubit having either no couplingterm or a coupling term that is small enough to be disregarded, involvessweeping the flux applied to the superconducting qubit by an amount andin a direction designed to detect crossing 960 and termini 952 and 953.This method makes use of the fact that a tank circuit can detect thecrossing by the hysteretic behavior of the qubit. The measurablequantities are two voltage dips of tank circuit 810 having asymmetricalshape with respect to bias flux. In other words, the tank circuit 810will experience a voltage dip to the left and to the right of crossing960, regardless of which energy state the superconducting qubit is in.Each of the voltage dips is correlated with a state of quantum system850.

Referring to FIG. 9B, if the superconducting qubit is in the |0

state, e.g. at energy level 950, and the flux applied to thesuperconducting qubit is increased, then the state of the qubit willremain as |0

and no voltage dip is observed. Likewise, if the superconducting qubitis in the |1

state, e.g. on energy level 951, and the flux applied to thesuperconducting qubit is decreased, then the state of the qubit willremain as |1

and no voltage dip is observed.

Now consider the case in which the superconducting qubit is in the |0

state, e.g. at energy level 950, and the flux applied to thesuperconducting qubit is decreased. In this case, the qubit will remainin the |0

state until the flux is decreased to just before the point correspondingto terminus 952, at which point a wide dip will occur in the voltage oftank circuit 810 due to slight curvature of level 950 in the vicinity ofterminus 952. After the flux is decreased past terminus 952, the statetransitions from |0

to |1

because state |0

no longer exists. Consequently, there is an abrupt rise in voltageacross tank circuit 810.

Further consider the case in which a qubit within quantum system 850 ofFIG. 8 is in the |1

state, e.g. at energy level 951 of FIG. 9B, and the flux applied to thesuperconducting qubit is increased. In this case, the state of the qubitwill remain in the |1

basis state until the flux is increased to just before terminus 953,where a wide dip will occur in the voltage of tank circuit 810 due toslight curvature in energy level 951 in the vicinity of terminus 953.After the flux is increased past terminus 953, the state transitions tothe |0

state and there is an abrupt rise in the voltage of tank circuit 810.

Form of Readout Signals

In accordance with some embodiments of the present methods, FIG. 10depicts examples of the form of readout signals, e.g. tank circuit 810voltage dips, obtained by measurement of a superconducting qubit orplurality of superconducting qubits in a quantum system 850. FIG. 10Aillustrates the form of a readout signal for a superconducting qubitthat includes an anticrossing (FIG. 9A) between two energy levels. FIG.10B illustrates the form of a readout signal for a superconducting qubitthat includes a crossing (FIG. 9B) between two energy levels. FIGS. 10Aand 10B plot the voltage response of a tank circuit against theadditional flux Φ_(A) in the qubit.

Voltage dips 1010 and 1020 in FIG. 10A are correlated with ananticrossing located to the right and left of equilibrium 1030. Inaccordance with the conventions of FIG. 9A, voltage dips 1010 and 1020corresponds to the measured qubit being in the |0

and |1

state, respectively. Using the conventions of FIG. 9A, the graphillustrated in FIG. 10A depicts two measurement results. If the dip 1010is observed this is an indication that the qubit was in the |0

state. If the dip 1020 is observed this is an indication that the qubitwas in the |1

state. Both dips are drawn for illustrative purposes, but ordinarilyonly one would be observed. A person having ordinary skill in the artwill appreciate that assignment of the labels “0” and “1” to states |0

and |1

is arbitrary and that direction of circulation of the current in thesuperconducting qubit is the actual physical quantity being measured.Further a person having ordinary skill in the art can make such alabeling for the physical state of any described embodiment of thepresent methods.

FIG. 10B is also the output from an oscilloscope. Graph 10B spans awider range of additional fluxes Φ_(A) than graph 10A. The periodicbehavior of the measured qubit is shown by the repetition of featuresevery flux quantum along the horizontal axis. A voltage dip in this viewis denoted by 1015 and corresponds to an unspecified state that is anequilibrium point. Also found in FIG. 10B are voltage dips thatrepresent an energy level crossing for the measured qubit. The plotshows dips 1025 and 1035, with the tell tale signs of hystereticbehavior—a voltage dip that is wide on one side and has a sharp rise onthe other. As the flux is applied to the qubit, the characteristics ofthe sides reverse location. Hysteric behavior is a term used to describea system whose response depends not only on its present state, but alsoupon its past history. Hysteric behavior is shown by the dips in thevoltage of tank circuit 810 illustrated in FIG. 10B. The behavior atparticular points in the sweep illustrated in FIG. 10B depends onwhether the flux is being increased or decreased. A person havingordinary skill in the art will appreciate that this behavior evidenceshysteretic behavior and therefore the presence of an energy levelcrossing (e.g., crossing 960 of FIG. 9B). See, for example, UnitedStates Patent Publication, US 2003/0224944 A1, entitled“Characterization and measurement of superconducting structures,” whichis hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety. Referring to FIG.10B, the state the qubit was in prior to readout is determined by thelocation of voltage dips 1025 and 1035 relative to an equilibrium point.As per the conventions of FIG. 9B, if voltage dips 1025 and 1035 are tothe left of the equilibrium point, than the qubit is in the |1

basis state prior to readout, whereas the qubit is in the |0

basis state if the dips are to the right of the equilibrium point. Aperson having ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that assignmentof the labels “0” and “1” for states |0

and |1

is arbitrary and that the direction of circulation of the current in thesuperconducting qubit is the actual physical quantity being measured.

The fidelity of the readout (407 of FIG. 4) is limited by the occurrenceof Landau-Zener transitions. A Landau-Zener is a transition betweenenergy states across the anticrossing illustrated in FIG. 9A. A personhaving ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the mereoccurrence of Landau-Zener transitions does not necessarily conveyinformation about the state of a qubit prior to readout, particularly inadiabatic readout processes. The exact form and phase of suchtransitions conveys such state information. A Landau-Zener transitionwill appear as a wide, short dip on the oscilloscope screen using theapparatus depicted in FIG. 8. However, the occurrence of a Landau-Zenertransition is only useful if the readout process (the sweep through anapplied flux range) occurring is diabatic. The processes that can bediabatic are certain embodiments of the readout process for a smallnumber of qubits.

In general, and especially during adiabatic evolution for adiabaticquantum computation (transition 404 of FIG. 4), a Landau-Zenertransition may not be permitted to occur. The occurrence of aLandau-Zener transition is useful for some configurations of quantumsystem 850 (FIG. 8) in some read out embodiments (407) if such read outprocesses are diabatic. Landau-Zener transitions may not occur duringacts 401, 403, 404, and 405 of FIG. 4 and, in fact, the probability thatsuch a transition will occur in act 404 serves to limit the time inwhich quantum system 850 can be adiabatically evolved from H₀ to H_(P).

One embodiment of the present methods makes use of a negative feedbackloop technique to ensure that Landau-Zener transitions do not occurduring adiabatic evolution 404 (FIG. 4). In this feedback technique, theuser of an adiabatic quantum computer observes the readout from one ormore superconducting qubits undergoing adiabatic evolution. If ananticrossing is approached too fast, tank circuit 810 coupled to quantumsystem 850 (FIG. 8) will exhibit a voltage dip. In response, the user,or an automated system, can repeat the entire process depicted in FIG. 4but evolve at a slower rate during 404 so that evolution 404 remainsadiabatic. This procedure permits the adiabatic evolution to occur at avariable rate, while having a shorter duration, and remain an adiabaticprocess.

In some embodiments of the present methods, the change in magnitude ofthe response of tank circuit, χ, ranges from about 0.01 radians to about6 radians for the phase signal. In some embodiments of the presentmethods, the change in magnitude of the response of the tank circuit,tan(χ), ranges from about 0.02 microvolt (μV) to about 1 μV for theamplitude signal.

Adiabatic Readout

Embodiments of the present methods can make use of an adiabatic processto readout the state of the superconducting qubit during measurement407. Additional flux Φ_(A) and rf flux Φ_(RF) are added to thesuperconducting qubit and are modulated in accordance with the adiabaticprocesses described above. In instances where an additional fluxgenerates a dip in the voltage of tank circuit 810 and this additionalflux exceeds the amount of flux needed to reach the equilibrium point ofthe qubit, the qubit is deemed to have been in the |0

quantum state at the beginning of measurement 407, in accordance withthe conventions of FIG. 9B. Conversely, in instances where suchadditional flux generates a dip in the voltage of tank circuit 810 andthis additional flux is less than the amount of additional flux neededto reach the equilibrium point of the qubit, the qubit is deemed to havebeen in the |1

at the beginning of measurement 407, in accordance with the conventionsof FIG. 9B. The voltage dip is proportional to the second derivative ofthe energy level with respect to flux, or other parameters for otherqubits. Therefore, the dip occurs at and around the anticrossing 960where the curvature of the energy level is greatest. After reading outthe state of the superconducting qubit, the qubit is returned to itsoriginal state according to H_(p) by adiabatically removing theadditional flux in the qubit. The result of the readout is recorded as apart of 407. In some embodiments, the adiabatic nature of this type ofreadout does not alter the state of the superconducting qubit.

Repeated Readout

Embodiments of the present methods can make use of repeated adiabaticprocesses to readout the states of a plurality of superconducting qubitsin quantum system 850 (FIG. 8). Such embodiments work by reading thestate of each superconducting qubit in succession. In embodiments wherequantum system comprises a plurality of qubits, each qubit in theplurality of qubits is independently readout in a successive manner suchthat when any give qubit in the plurality of qubits in the quantumsystem 850 is being readout all other qubits in the quantum system arenot being readout. A qubit that is being readout while other qubits inthe quantum system are not being readout is referred to in this sectionas a target qubit.

In some embodiments, each qubit in quantum system 850 (FIG. 8) is readout adiabatically such that the quantum state of each of the remainingqubits in the quantum system is not altered. In some embodiments, thestate of all the qubits, target and other, are not altered during thereadout process 407 of any give target qubit. The target qubit's stateis temporarily flipped but the qubit is returned to its original stateby adiabatically removing the additional flux in the target qubit. Thiscontributes a multiplicative factor, based on the number of qubits inquantum system 850, to the length of adiabatic computation time.However, any single multiplicative factor keeps the overall adiabaticcomputation time polynomial with respect to the number of qubits. Insome embodiments, quantum system 850 comprises two or more qubits.

Biasing Qubits During Measurement

As part of measurement 407, each qubit, when it is the target qubit, inthe plurality of superconducting qubits in quantum system 850 (FIG. 8)is biased. The magnetic fields for the bias can be applied by the biaslines proximate on the qubit. The current used to bias the qubit isdependent on the mutual inductance between the qubit and the bias line.In some embodiments of the present methods, currents used in biasing thequbit have values of between about 0 milliamperes and about 2milliamperes, inclusive. Here, the term “about” means±20% of the statedvalue. In such embodiments, a target qubit within quantum system 850 isselected. Additional flux Φ_(A) and rf flux Φ_(RF) are added to thetarget qubit, and are modulated in accordance with the adiabatic readoutprocesses described above. In such instances, when the additional fluxthat produces a voltage dip in tank circuit 810 is more than the amountof flux associated with the equilibrium point of the qubit, the qubit isdeemed to have been in the |0

state at the beginning of measurement 407 in accordance with theconventions of FIG. 9. Similarly, when the additional flux that producesa voltage dip in tank circuit 810 is less than the amount of fluxassociated with the equilibrium point of the qubit, the qubit is deemedto have been in the |1

state in accordance with the conventions of FIG. 9. After reading outthe state of the target qubit, the target qubit is returned to the statethat the qubit was in prior to measurement. The result of the readout isrecorded in vector {right arrow over (O)} as a part of 407. The processis repeated for a new target qubit in the plurality of qubits until allthe qubits have been readout. In some embodiments, when a new target isselected, a randomly selected bias is applied to the old target qubit.Randomization of the order of target qubits and rerunning thecomputation helps avoid errors. The adiabatic nature of this type ofreadout typically does not flip the state of the target qubit nor any ofthe superconducting qubits in the plurality of superconducting qubits.

Application of Approximate Evaluation Techniques

The detailed exact calculation of energy spectra of an instantaneousHamiltonian H(t) can be intractable due to exponential growth of theproblems size as a function of the number of qubits used in an adiabaticcomputation. Therefore, approximate evaluation techniques are useful asa best guess of the location of the crossings and anticrossings.Accordingly, some embodiments of the present methods make use of anapproximate evaluation method to locate anticrossing of the energies, orenergy spectra, of the qubits in quantum system 850. Doing so lessensthe time needed to probe the anticrossing and crossings with additionalflux.

In an embodiment of the present methods, techniques collectively knownas random matrix theory (RMT) are applied to analyze the quantumadiabatic algorithm during readout. See Brody et al., 1981, Rev. Mod.Phys. 53, p. 385.

In another embodiment of the present methods, spin density functionaltheory (SDFT) is used as an approximate evaluation method to locateanticrossing of the energies of the system. The probing of the energyspectra by the additional flux can then be used to locate the crossingsand anticrossing and perform a readout of the state of superconductingqubits.

In another embodiment of the present methods, the approximate evaluationtechnique comprises a classical approximation algorithm in order tosolve NP-Hard problems. When there is a specific instance of a problemto be solved, the problem is mapped to a description of the qubits beingused to solve the NP-Hard problem. This process involves finding anapproximation algorithm to the problem being solved by the quantumcomputer and running the approximation algorithm. The approximatesolution is then mapped to the quantum computer's state using themapping that was used to encode the instance of the NP-Hard problem.This provides a good estimate for the state of the superconductingqubits and lessens the requirements on probing the energy levels forcrossings and anticrossings. Such a mapping typically involves settingthe coupling energies between the qubits being used to solve the NP-Hardproblem so that the qubits approximately represent the problem to besolved. For examples of approximation algorithms useful for the presentmethods see Goemans and Williamson, “0.878-approximation algorithms forMAX CUT and MAX 2SAT,” In Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual ACMSymposium on the Theory of Computing, pages 422-431, Montréal, Québec,Canada, 23-25 May 1994.

Adiabatic Quantum Computing with Charge Qubits

In accordance with an aspect of the present methods, superconductingcharge qubits can be used in adiabatic quantum computation devices(e.g., in quantum systems 850). In an embodiment of the present methods,capacitively coupled superconducting charge qubits can be used foradiabatic quantum computing. In an embodiment of the present methods,the charge qubits have a fixed or tunable tunneling term. In anembodiment of the present methods, the couplings between charge qubitshave a fixed or tunable sign and/or magnitude of coupling. Someembodiments of the present methods are operated in a dilutionrefrigerator, where the temperature is about between about 10milliKelvin and 4.2 Kelvin.

Representative System

FIG. 11 illustrates a system 1100 that is operated in accordance withone embodiment of the present methods. System 1100 includes at least onedigital (binary, conventional) interface computer 1101. Computer 1101includes standard computer components including at least one centralprocessing unit 1110, memory 1120, non-volatile memory, such as diskstorage 1115. Both memory and storage are for storing program modulesand data structures. Computer 1101 further includes input/output device1111, controller 1116 and one or more busses 1117 that interconnect theaforementioned components. User input/output device 1111 includes one ormore user input/output components such as a display 1112, mouse 1113,and/or keyboard 1114.

System 1100 further includes an adiabatic quantum computing device 1140that includes those adiabatic quantum computing devices shown above.Exemplary examples of adiabatic quantum computing devices 1140 include,but are not limited to, devices 101 of FIG. 1; 500, 510, 525, 535, and555 of FIG. 5; and 800 of FIG. 8. This list of exemplary examples ofadiabatic quantum computing devices is non-limiting. A person ofordinary skill in the art will recognize other devices suitable for1140.

System 1100 further includes a readout control system 1160. In someembodiments, readout control system 1160 comprises a plurality ofmagnetometers, or electrometers, where each magnetometer or electrometeris inductively coupled, or capacitively coupled, respectively, to adifferent qubit in quantum computing device 1140. In such embodiments,controller 1116 receives a signal, by way of readout control system1160, from each magnetometer or electrometer in readout device 1160.System 1100 optionally comprises a qubit control system 1165 for thequbits in quantum computing device 1140. In some embodiments, qubitcontrol system 1165 comprises a magnetic field source or electric fieldsource that is inductively coupled or capacitively coupled,respectively, to a qubit in quantum computing device 1140. System 1100optionally comprises a coupling device control system 1170 to controlthe couplings between qubits in adiabatic quantum computing device 1140.

In some embodiments, memory 1120 includes a number of modules and datastructures. It will be appreciated that at any one time during operationof the system, all or a portion of the modules and/or data structuresstored in memory 1120 are resident in random access memory (RAM) and allor a portion of the modules and/or data structures are stored innon-volatile storage 1115. Furthermore, although memory 1120, includingnon-volatile memory 1115, is shown as housed within computer 1101, thepresent methods is not so limited. Memory 1120 is any memory housedwithin computer 1101 or that is housed within one or more externaldigital computers (not shown) that are addressable by digital computer1101 across a network (e.g., a wide area network such as the internet).

In some embodiments, memory 1120 includes an operating system 1121.Operating system 1121 includes procedures for handling various systemservices, such as file services, and for performing hardware dependanttasks. In some embodiments of the present methods, the programs and datastored in system memory 1120 further include an adiabatic quantumcomputing device interface module 1123 for defining and executing aproblem to be solved on an adiabatic quantum computing device. In someembodiments, memory 1120 includes a driver module 1127. Driver module1127 includes procedures for interfacing with and handling the variousperipheral units to computer 1101, such as controller 1116 and controlsystems 1160, qubit control system 1165, coupling device control system1170, and adiabatic quantum computing device 1140. In some embodimentsof the present methods, the programs and data stored in system memory1120 further include a readout module 1130 for interpreting the datafrom controller 1116 and readout control system 1160.

The functionality of controller 1116 can be divided into two classes offunctionality: data acquisition and control. In some embodiments, twodifferent types of chips are used to handle each of these discretefunctional classes. Data acquisition can be used to measure physicalproperties of the qubits in adiabatic quantum computing device 1140after adiabatic evolution has been completed. Such data can be measuredusing any number of customized or commercially available dataacquisition microcontrollers including, but not limited to, dataacquisition cards manufactured by Elan Digital Systems (Fareham, UK)including, but are not limited to, the AD132, AD136, MF232, MF236,AD142, AD218, and CF241. In some embodiments, data acquisition andcontrol is handled by a single type of microprocessor, such as the ElanD403C or D480C. In some embodiments, there are multiple interface cards1116 in order to provide sufficient control over the qubits in acomputation 1140 and in order to measure the results of an adiabaticquantum computation on 1140.

CONCLUSION

When introducing elements of the present methods or the embodiment(s)thereof, the articles “a,” “an,” “the,” and “said” are intended to meanthat there are one or more of the elements. The terms “comprising,”“including,” and “having” are intended to be inclusive and to mean thatthere may be additional elements other than the listed elements.Moreover, the term “about” has been used to describe specificparameters. In many instances, specific ranges for the term “about” havebeen provided. However, when no specific range has been provided for aparticular usage of the term “about” herein, than either of twodefinitions can be used. In the first definition, the term “about” isthe typical range of values about the stated value that one of skill inthe art would expect for the physical parameter represented by thestated value. For example, a typical range of values about a specifiedvalue can be defined as the typical error that would be expected inmeasuring or observing the physical parameter that the specified valuerepresents. In the second definition of about, the term “about” meansthe stated value ±0.10 of the stated value. As used herein, the term“instance” means the execution of an act. For example, in a multi-actmethod, a particular act may be repeated. Each repetition of this act isreferred to herein as an “instance” of the act.

All references cited herein, including but not limited to U.S.provisional patent application No. 60/557,748, filed on Mar. 29, 2004;60/588,002, filed on Jul. 13, 2004; and 60/762,619, filed Jan. 27, 2006;and United States Application Publication Number 2005/0224784 A1, filedon Mar. 28, 2005, entitled “Adiabatic Quantum Computation withSuperconducting Qubits,” United States Application Publication Number2005/0250651 A1, filed Mar. 28, 2005, entitled “Adiabatic QuantumComputation with Superconducting Qubits,” and United States ApplicationPublication Number 2005/0256007 A1, entitled “Adiabatic QuantumComputation with Superconducting Qubits,” filed on Mar. 28, 2005, areincorporated herein by reference in their entireties and for allpurposes to the same extent as if each individual publication or patentor patent application was specifically and individually indicated to beincorporated by reference in its entirety for all purposes.

ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS

The present methods can be implemented as a computer program productthat comprises a computer program mechanism embedded in a computerreadable storage medium. For instance, the computer program productcould contain program modules, such as those illustrated in FIG. 11,that implement the various methods described herein. These programmodules can be stored on a CD-ROM, DVD, magnetic disk storage product,or any other computer readable data or program storage product. Thesoftware modules in the computer program product can also be distributedelectronically, via the Internet or otherwise, by transmission of acomputer data signal (in which the software modules are embedded) on acarrier wave.

Those skilled in the art would appreciate that while superconductingflux qubits are primarily discussed herein, superconducting chargequbits, superconducting phase qubits, superconducting hybrid qubits,quantum dots, trapped ions, trapped neutral atoms, qubits formed usingnuclear spins, and photonic qubits could all be used to produce quantumsystems capable of practicing the methods described.

Also, those skilled in the art will appreciate that readout of the stateof a quantum system can also be completed though the employ of dc-SQUIDsor magnetic force microscopes (MFM) in place of a tank circuit which isdiscussed extensively.

Many modifications and variations of the present methods can be madewithout departing from its spirit and scope, as will be apparent tothose skilled in the art. The specific embodiments described herein areoffered by way of example only, and the invention is to be limited onlyby the terms of the appended claims, along with the full scope ofequivalents to which such claims are entitled.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for adiabatic quantum computing using aquantum system comprising a plurality of superconducting qubits, whereinthe quantum system is capable of being in any one of at least twoconfigurations at any give time, the at least two configurationsincluding: a first configuration described by an initializationHamiltonian H_(O) having a first state; and a second configurationdescribed by a problem Hamiltonian H_(P) having a second state, themethod comprising: initializing the quantum system to the firstconfiguration; evolving the quantum system wherein at least a portion ofthe evolution is adiabatically evolved thereby achieving an adiabaticevolution wherein a state of the quantum system during the adiabaticevolution is characterized by an evolution Hamiltonian H until it isdescribed by the second state of the problem Hamiltonian H_(P), andwherein the evolution Hamiltonian H comprises an energy spectrum with atleast one anticrossing; controlling a rate of the adiabatic evolutionvia an evolution rate parameter γ(t); reducing the rate of change of theevolution rate parameter γ(t) during the adiabatic evolution in avicinity of a first anticrossing in the at least one anticrossing; andreading out the state of the quantum system.
 2. The method of claim 1wherein controlling a rate of the adiabatic evolution via an evolutionrate parameter γ(t) includes controlling the rate of the adiabaticevolution via the evolution rate parameter γ(t) ranging between about 0and about
 1. 3. The method of claim 2 wherein the evolution rateparameter γ(t) is between about 0.3 to about 0.7 in the vicinity of thefirst anticrossing.
 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the rate of changeof the evolution rate parameter γ(t) is reduced by a factor of at leastabout 2 in the vicinity of the first anticrossing relative to the rateof change of the evolution rate parameter in a part of the energyspectrum that is not in the vicinity of the first anticrossing.
 5. Themethod of claim 1 wherein the rate of change of the evolution rateparameter γ(t) is reduced when the value of the evolution rate parameteris within about ten percent of the value the evolution rate parameterhas at the first anticrossing.
 6. The method of claim 1 wherein reducingthe rate of change includes reducing at least one of: a rate at which atleast one of a coupling strength between at least one pair ofsuperconducting qubits in the plurality of superconducting qubits ischanged, a tunneling amplitude of at least one superconducting qubit inthe plurality of superconducting qubits is changed, and a local bias ofat least one superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconductingqubits is changed.
 7. The method of claim 6 wherein the local biasincludes at least one of a flux bias and a charge bias.
 8. The method ofclaim 1 wherein the vicinity of the first anticrossing is determined bya statistical analysis of a plurality of problem Hamiltonians.
 9. Themethod of claim 1 wherein each respective superconducting qubit in theplurality of superconducting qubits is initialized by a respective qubitbias such that each respective qubit bias defines at least a portion ofa computational problem to be solved.
 10. The method of claim 1 whereineach respective first superconducting qubit in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is arranged with respect to a respective secondsuperconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits suchthat the first superconducting qubit and the corresponding secondsuperconducting qubit define a predetermined coupling strength andwherein the predetermined coupling strength between each firstsuperconducting qubit and corresponding second superconducting qubit inthe plurality of superconducting qubits collectively define at least aportion of a computational problem to be solved.
 11. The method of claim1 wherein the problem Hamiltonian H_(P) comprises a tunneling term foreach superconducting qubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits,and wherein the energy of the tunneling term for each superconductingqubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits is less than an averageof a set of absolute values of the predetermined coupling strengthsbetween each first superconducting qubit and second superconductingqubit in the plurality of superconducting qubits.
 12. The method ofclaim 1 wherein the reading out includes probing an observable of atleast one of a σ_(X) Pauli matrix operator and a σ_(Z) Pauli matrixoperator for at least one of the superconducting qubits in the pluralityof superconducting qubits.
 13. The method of claim 1 wherein at leastone of the superconducting qubits in the plurality of superconductingqubits is selected from the group consisting of a persistent currentqubit and a superconducting flux qubit.
 14. The method of claim 1wherein at least one of the superconducting qubits in the plurality ofsuperconducting qubits is capable of tunneling between a first stablestate and a second stable state when the quantum system is in the firstconfiguration.
 15. The method of claim 1 wherein at least one of thesuperconducting qubits in the plurality of superconducting qubits iscapable of tunneling between a first stable state and a second stablestate during the evolution.